Shaming birdwatchers on social media (4 Viewers)

[condor1992]

Birdwatching is a fun activity, and in the process you can meet some great people. However, not everyone is as friendly as others.
Recently I have seen a surge in birdwatchers shaming others on Twitter and other sites. Photos have been taken of birdwatchers without their consent, and then shared publically without their consent on social media with the sole purpose of shaming and ridiculing them because they allegedly 'disturb wildlife'. This has never happened to me, but I am seeing too many photos of people on social media with unpleasant comments attached below.
I want to be clear that I consider disturbing birds unacceptable, for photos and for everything. Owls seem to be disturbed very often, and a lot of the time I see gloaty posts on such sites bragging about their photos showing extremely disturbed owls, most often short-eared owls. It isn't difficult to tell when a bird is disturbed, how close is too close, and using your common sense. One time when taking photos of a long-eared owl in a hide last year, I was sitting next to someone who started making noises in an attempt to get the owl (which was asleep) to look at them.
But what I consider even more unacceptable is taking photos of someone who in someone else's opinion got too close to a bird, then sharing these photos without their consent to shame them and ridicule them. Today, I came across a Twitter post showing someone photographed without their consent at Eldernell. That photo was retweeted by others, and comments were written, and so on. Not only is this not allowed by social media rules, it is morally abhorrent. Disturbing birds is as well, but this crosses a line into cyberbullying. Birdwatching isn't the only place where it happens as well- recently a long-lipped serapias colony was found in Kent and, after people were getting close to them, someone put up camera traps near them and made a note threatening to share photos of anyone who these camera traps recorded, as well as reporting them under the WCA (this threat is void as this particular orchid species does not have legal protection in the UK, and in fact the legality of installing these traps is seriously questionable)
This must stop.

 

[KenM]

Suppose it’s time to “mask-up” then.🤣

 

[wheatearlp]

Birdwatching is a fun activity, and in the process you can meet some great people. However, not everyone is as friendly as others.
Recently I have seen a surge in birdwatchers shaming others on Twitter and other sites. Photos have been taken of birdwatchers without their consent, and then shared publically without their consent on social media with the sole purpose of shaming and ridiculing them because they allegedly 'disturb wildlife'. This has never happened to me, but I am seeing too many photos of people on social media with unpleasant comments attached below.
I want to be clear that I consider disturbing birds unacceptable, for photos and for everything. Owls seem to be disturbed very often, and a lot of the time I see gloaty posts on such sites bragging about their photos showing extremely disturbed owls, most often short-eared owls. It isn't difficult to tell when a bird is disturbed, how close is too close, and using your common sense. One time when taking photos of a long-eared owl in a hide last year, I was sitting next to someone who started making noises in an attempt to get the owl (which was asleep) to look at them.
But what I consider even more unacceptable is taking photos of someone who in someone else's opinion got too close to a bird, then sharing these photos without their consent to shame them and ridicule them. Today, I came across a Twitter post showing someone photographed without their consent at Eldernell. That photo was retweeted by others, and comments were written, and so on. Not only is this not allowed by social media rules, it is morally abhorrent. Disturbing birds is as well, but this crosses a line into cyberbullying. Birdwatching isn't the only place where it happens as well- recently a long-lipped serapias colony was found in Kent and, after people were getting close to them, someone put up camera traps near them and made a note threatening to share photos of anyone who these camera traps recorded, as well as reporting them under the WCA (this threat is void as this particular orchid species does not have legal protection in the UK, and in fact the legality of installing these traps is seriously questionable)
This must stop.

How would you suggest dealing with the problem? Having a quiet word sometimes works, but can also result in verbal and/or physical threats to those making the point.
Obviously, in an ideal world people would be sensible and not encroach to such a degree that birds (or other wildlife) are disturbed. Reality, as I'm sure many are aware, is a different matter.
So, what is the answer, if the on-line 'outing' of this type of disturbance is unacceptable to some?

 

[Andy Adcock]

Humanity, showing one of it's uglier faces in birding, some people like to stir up a frenzy and illicit a public 'pile on'. Your social and political comments can make you a target too, one group of cowardly individuals, started a twitter thread about me and my opinions expressed on this site. A couple of these people were fairly well known names in birding and I withdrew my subscription to a birding magazine in relation to one of them.

 

[Sangahyando]

[...]
But what I consider even more unacceptable is taking photos of someone who in someone else's opinion got too close to a bird, then sharing these photos without their consent to shame them and ridicule them. [...]

I thought that was illegal?

 

[Owene]

I’ve been to eldernell. Was the only one there and had to find the owl for myself. I still took a photo from the top of the bank. It’s really not difficult, it’s mentioned in every report of location which is how the togger will have known the bird was there and even if you set up where he set up you’re still going to have an obscured owl by the hedge and everyone knowing you’re a dick.

The bank is also only a few meters deep the difference that makes to a long lens is presumably nothing.

So absolutely no sympathy but I do find some of the ‘in my day fieldcraft…’ brigade tiresome too. Every single birder will have flushed a bird at some point. Every single interaction between bird and birder is potentially negative for the birds. 99% of us do try our best in that regard but that’s all we can manage. We’re still trying to see birds that by and large would rather be left alone. We talk about welfare of the birds and try our best on site but the bird would still probably be better off if we weren’t there

On a macro level birders may help species but on an individual level we don’t

 

[Farnboro John]

Photographic evidence in criminal cases is generally taken without the criminal's permission, so I reckon the photos should be taken but sent to the local police wildlife officer, with the offence committed identified, for them to initiate prosecution. Identifying the criminal may be an issue but you can always ask on social media if they won't tell you, or give a pseudonym....

If there's no joy from the police and the offence is on a reserve then tell the managers/rangers and pass the pix to them (in fact send them to both on the same email because then neither will be able to claim nobody told them). That way when these people re-offend they can be recognised and official action taken. I've done that a few times with people fishing and swimming in my local reserve and the rangers are grateful for the evidence as they consider most will repeat the actions.

Wildlife protection is everybody's business and includes dobbing in the bad guys.

John

 

[Jacana]

At least in the UK, in general it is not against the law to photograph someone and put it on social media in the context that we're talking about. So talk of consent is meaningless.

Of course, the person in the photo could try to sue for defamation, but then the onus would be on the photographed person to prove they were being defamed.

It may also potentially be construed as cyber bullying, but the violin I'll be playing is particularly tiny in most of these instances.

 

[Jos Stratford]

You have raised discussion around species sensitive to disturbance and trampling of orchids, etc, several times before, your opinion generally being very much against people withholding information on the localities of such species.

You are aware that some of these birds do suffer genuine disturbance to the extent of abandoning roost sites on occasion. Perhaps even more serious, you are aware that trampling is one of the main threads facing orchids with quite a number of conservation groups attributing trampling by visitors to severe declines in the species. Requests for visitors to remain on paths are frequently ignored as are limitations on access by areas being fenced off, certain persons simply climbing over anyhow.

In the face of this, persons are often very reluctant to share information and organisations have requested that sites are not shared. You yourself have been very critical of these measures.

In light of all above, when a minority clearly doesn't care very much about the welfare of the species they observe, what do you propose to help protect them? Perhaps naming and shaming is somewhat unsavoury, but if it helps protect vulnerable species, I'd say it is a price worth paying. In the case of camera traps with warning signs at orchid sites, a very good idea - should be more.

 

[vergan]

Suppose it’s time to “mask-up” then.🤣

I remember seeing at the entrance of a fenced penguin colony a photograph of a human with its dog. The guy had edited the head for privacy, but the dog was perfectably identifiably

 

[mjh73]

I thought that was illegal?

Not , generally speaking, if you are in a public place. Notwithstanding different laws in different places.
In Australia many people think their photo cannot be taken without their express permission but that is not true.

 

[Paul Chapman]

The photograph that I saw showed a stationary individual with a long lens on a Tripod on the public side of the fence at the bottom of the bank at the well known Eldernell site with the words "If only I could get closer to the LEOs". It confirmed that he was not the only individual and confirmed that there were no signs asking people to stay at the top of the bank.

It was reposted by a third party with the comments "Toxic culture of irresponsibility is too embedded."

I have visited the site once previously. On that occasion, dozens of individuals including small children were being helped down the bank to get an angle to see the Owl properly at the required angle. The roost is within an inaccessible area and fenced off.

It reminded me of the infamous incident on Shetland when three or four people at the request of the farmer attempted to move a Lanceolated Warbler from one side of a road to the other. The problem was that his curious cattle were all jostling around their fence line approaching the people and he was worried about his fence.

That was put onto social media as the entirety of the crowd flushing the bird for views. It was reposted by Chris Packham with the words "Get a grip people . This is no worse that shooting snipe or woodcock . Life is more important than lifers . Thanks to @JackBaddams for highlighting this yobbish behaviour".

The bird was being watched and people had seen it and continued to do so before the farmer asked for it to be 'mooved'.

This site seems to delight in people expressing their opinions irrespective of any knowledge or experience or attempt to research facts. I came across a thread the other day from many years ago with people expressing the usual inaccurate views as to the importance and role of litigation in a civilised society when I explained the elements and the mechanics of the tort of deceit.

As a result, no inclination to dwell on legal interpretations to be "corrected" but in short, knowing the circumstances of both, it is pretty obvious to me that both posts referenced above were "pile ons" and both reposts were defamatory.

As John has explained, if you see behaviour that you may consider to be illegal or inappropriate, then photographic evidence is likely to be important but report it through the correct channels. That is not social media. Sometimes that can be frustrating being passed from pillar to post. Natural England/landowner/please report to police etc... You are protected from defamation in such circumstances.

Also be careful because my experience is that proper wrongdoers rather than the more innocent victims of social media campaigns tend to behave like proper wrongdoers in response in those circumstances.

All the best

Paul

 

[Farnboro John]

I would just slightly disagree with Paul's legalistic approach by suggesting that it shouldn't take a sign to guide behaviour. The absence of a sign does not mean it's open season. Both common sense and the birdwatcher's code provide suitable guidance.

There is an increasing issue with non-birder photographers on birding sites (physical sites, not the net): they are easily recognised by their lack of binoculars. IMHO: engage with them politely if they are not being sufficiently aware of possible disturbance issues, advise them of any legal requirements (Schedule One of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 generally impresses) and don't, under any circumstances or spirit of humanity, give them any additional site information on any species at all. Ever.

That said there are certainly birds that don't require standing back 200 yards (as an absurd example you wouldn't worry about feral pigeons in that way) but even with some of these species individuals vary and proper caution and awareness of the bird's reactions is necessary. Fieldcraft of this kind remains important and can only be gained through experience: it can help to have someone already experienced with you early in your career.

John

 

[Paul Chapman]

I would just slightly disagree with Paul's legalistic approach by suggesting that it shouldn't take a sign to guide behaviour. The absence of a sign does not mean it's open season. Both common sense and the birdwatcher's code provide suitable guidance.

There is an increasing issue with non-birder photographers on birding sites (physical sites, not the net): they are easily recognised by their lack of binoculars. IMHO: engage with them politely if they are not being sufficiently aware of possible disturbance issues, advise them of any legal requirements (Schedule One of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 generally impresses) and don't, under any circumstances or spirit of humanity, give them any additional site information on any species at all. Ever.

That said there are certainly birds that don't require standing back 200 yards (as an absurd example you wouldn't worry about feral pigeons in that way) but even with some of these species individuals vary and proper caution and awareness of the bird's reactions is necessary. Fieldcraft of this kind remains important and can only be gained through experience: it can help to have someone already experienced with you early in your career.

John

Do you know the site John? Did you stay on the top of the bank? By the way, you are disagreeing with something I did not say. I said that there was no sign. I did not say that signs should be needed.

I can only apologise for the only occasion I visited for walking down the bank to show small children the Owl that they could not see from the top of the bank from a different angle. Personally, I considered doing so was in no way an example of poor behaviour....

Similarly, most of my engagement with people locally is with people without bins trying to be an evangelist for nature and perhaps leading to the point that they acquire them. Indeed, I highlighted my frustration on social media recently that the conservation organisations do not push entry level optics. How sensibly priced and functional could those become....

Ho hum

Paul

 

[Farnboro John]

Do you know the site John? Did you stay on the top of the bank? By the way, you are disagreeing with something I did not say. I said that there was no sign. I did not say that signs should be needed.

I can only apologise for the only occasion I visited for walking down the bank to show small children the Owl that they could not see from the top of the bank from a different angle. Personally, I considered doing so was in no way an example of poor behaviour....

Similarly, most of my engagement with people locally is with people without bins trying to be an evangelist for nature and perhaps leading to the point that they acquire them. Indeed, I highlighted my frustration on social media recently that the conservation organisations do not push entry level optics. How sensibly priced and functional could those become....

Ho hum

Paul

I do know the site. It is a very fine place to see many birds and was my last stop on 1 January this year. I do not doubt that people will disagree over where the owls should be watched from, but I choose to take the advice of those locals who say they have occasionally seen owls move due to close approach (i.e. by the fence.) However on most occasions when I have been there the owls have been in the second row of hedge, probably because they are fed up with being moved from the nearest perches and have chosen to routinely stay back from the fence. It is likely (though I don't know for sure) that owls that have moved have been in the front hedge.

I have shown many non-birders (in the interest of absolute clarity I should have said that the non-birder photographer class are invariably equipped with mighty lensed cameras but no bins) these owls and other birds, often by scoping them which saves giving directions and offers the best of views. Obviously I entirely agree with you about being an ambassador for nature with the general public, and I endorse your point about optics too.

Cheers

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

That said there are certainly birds that don't require standing back 200 yards (as an absurd example you wouldn't worry about feral pigeons in that way) but even with some of these species individuals vary and proper caution and awareness of the bird's reactions is necessary. Fieldcraft of this kind remains important and can only be gained through experience: it can help to have someone already experienced with you early in your career.

John

It's not like it's a Ninja skill, it's based around every day, common sense.

 

[Farnboro John]

It's not like it's a Ninja skill, it's based around every day, common sense.

No, some of it is like a ninja skill, e.g. routinely moving slowly rather than suddenly whether turning one's head, raising bins or even pointing requires genuine mindfulness that needs to be practiced (as opposed to the meaningless mindfulness trumpeted by the wellbeing community). Gaining the skill requires knowing about it and making an effort.

John

 

[pppppvvvv]

Absolutely, and I don't know the geography of this site, but often "the top of the bank" has you silhouetted against the sky and capable of flushing anything in a huge radius, compared with being down in the long grass

 

[Andy Adcock]

No, some of it is like a ninja skill, e.g. routinely moving slowly rather than suddenly whether turning one's head, raising bins or even pointing requires genuine mindfulness that needs to be practiced (as opposed to the meaningless mindfulness trumpeted by the wellbeing community). Gaining the skill requires knowing about it and making an effort.

John

No choice now with my knees, any tips on reducing the creaking sound?

Also, there are two competing philosophies for want of a better term. I've seen discussions on how to see the most birds in any, given habita, some say move slowly, others say move quickly to cover more ground?

 

[Farnboro John]

No choice now with my knees, any tips on reducing the creaking sound?

Also, there are two competing philosophies for want of a better term. I've seen discussions on how to see the most birds in any, given habita, some say move slowly, others say move quickly to cover more ground?

Even so I don't think moving quickly involves lycra and running shoes except maybe on a bird race!

(Relax everybody, my birding doesn't involve lycra full stop.)

John