Shaming birdwatchers on social media (2 Viewers)

[Farnboro John]

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

The top of the bank at Eldernell (Nene Washes RSPB) is some hundreds of yards from most of the birds. From the floods on which they reside one is separated by a canal/land drain. It is a popular walking route for families and hikers: people, dogs, cattle and sheep are constantly on the move along it in both directions. The Mute Swans and Moorhens on the drain ignore humans and other birds are all more distant. Birders are no more likely to flush birds by watching from the top of the bank than from the seawall at Pennington.

John

 

[pppppvvvv]

The top of the bank at Eldernell (Nene Washes RSPB) is some hundreds of yards from most of the birds. From the floods on which they reside one is separated by a canal/land drain. It is a popular walking route for families and hikers: people, dogs, cattle and sheep are constantly on the move along it in both directions. The Mute Swans and Moorhens on the drain ignore humans and other birds are all more distant. Birders are no more likely to flush birds by watching from the top of the bank than from the seawall at Pennington.

John

Sea wall at Pennington, now you're talking! Why am I sat at a desk instead of there right now!
And I think that is the only solution for nature reserves. Looking inland from the wall at any rate.
Barbed wire fencing and 10 foot wide, 10 foot deep ditch right next to the footpath for the entirety of the reserve.

 

[Xenospiza]

And I think that is the only solution for nature reserves. Looking inland from the wall at any rate.
Barbed wire fencing and 10 foot wide, 10 foot deep ditch right next to the footpath for the entirety of the reserve.

I really prefer birds to be in such places, as it will keep the people in check. Not too many bird photographers with drones yet.

 

[Farnboro John]

I really prefer birds to be in such places, as it will keep the people in check. Not too many bird photographers with drones yet.

Plenty of non-bird photographers though, I've already dealt with two on separate occasions at Thursley Common NNR.

John

 

[JWN Andrewes]

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

John

Shame, I'd have bought shares.

 

[opisska]

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.

I really hope nobody here listens to this unhinged advice. Or should I print dummy binos, so that I fit into the official proper birder look? There is nothing wrong with choosing a camera instead of binoculars for birding. If anything it's better for the birds, because I am usually studying the plumage details for ID on the screen in the distance, while the "proper birders" are chasing the bird from one bush to another to "get a proper look".

 

[KenM]

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

……that might be stretching it a bit.🤣

 

[Farnboro John]

I really hope nobody here listens to this unhinged advice. Or should I print dummy binos, so that I fit into the official proper birder look? There is nothing wrong with choosing a camera instead of binoculars for birding. If anything it's better for the birds, because I am usually studying the plumage details for ID on the screen in the distance, while the "proper birders" are chasing the bird from one bush to another to "get a proper look".

Excessive language I feel, but wrong anyway. No camera lens in the world offers the depth of field (or field of view) that bins will give to allow very quick scanning of an entire habitat, detecting and then identifying birds with minimal movement of the body. With a camera you will never keep up with a bins-equipped birder.

A camera is good for blowing up an image on the back of a bird already found if one is struggling to identify it.

Obviously massive generalisation will miss the occasional exception to the rule but in a British context at least a photographer without bins is unlikely to know much about birds. Or fieldcraft. Or environmental legislation.

John

 

[Steve Babbs]

There is nothing wrong with choosing a camera instead of binoculars for birding. I

If you really think a camera is better than binoculars for watching birds - and that is what birding is - then you have clearly looked through awful binoculars: there is no comparison. But this is going off topic.

I wouldn't chose to put photos of people disturbing birds on social media unless they were repeat offenders and had been spoken to firmly but politely and had ignored that. I have never been in that situation.

 

[Andy Lakin]

The tricky thing for me is that birds will often approach humans out of curiosity. A single picture of a photographer in close proximity to a bird doesn't prove anything by itself. Yesterday I had a Kestrel over the garden showing really well and would have been a great subject to photo if I owned a camera.

Inexperienced birders are often unaware of where best to place themselves to allow the birds to come to them I.e shorties. I had a raptor near me that I put out and the amount of idiots ignoring instructions was unreal. The best was birders standing on top of a bank in full view a few yards from the birds favourite roosting spot not surprisingly the bird then either didn't show or only showed briefly!

 

[simmojunior]

Whatever the best spot to view owls at Eldernell, I want to say how much I agree with the original poster. I hate social media pile ons in birding and the self-appointed, holier than thou twitter birding police. Some people seem to go on twitches primarily to complain about behaviour rather than see the bird. If you don't want crowds, don't twitch a Waterthrush. Twitter pile ons don't stop bad behaviour, they just demean people and put people off our hobby.

 

[Scott98]

interesting to think about the State and its cameras. Big Brother's always watching and recording and saving it for perpetuity.

So if a little cyber-bullying of bird harassers bothers you, just imagine what the government's got on you. Everything. Your whereabouts and everything you do. They won't be posting it on social media, but they've got it.

Here in the US they also allow private entities to surveil you and your car and then the govt. buys the info from them to avoid those nasty civil liberty & privacy laws we used to use

Personally I think the birder-shaming photos are OK as long as they're anonymous and don't identify the person. But I guess the whole point is identify them?

 

[Mysticete]

On one hand...I don't like the idea of piling onto anyone online, and I hate the witch-hunt mentality that often comes with social media. I don't think there is any single one of us who hasn't flushed something, gone where they shouldn't, or otherwise done things that other naturalists/hikers/birders would find annoying, and I hate the idea that one mistake could be plastered over social media.

on the other hand, I have also run into plenty of people who just don't give a crap, and simple polite requests mean nothing to them, because getting the "perfect shot" or that county tick are more important. I've missed out on some great birds over the years due to jerks like this (that spoonbill still hurts), or just plain had a birding day ruined. So screw those guys.

 

[Patudo]

Simple really - just don't put yourself in a position where you could be construed as disturbing sensitive wildlife.

Wasn't it Beria (lol) who said that "if you're innocent you have nothing to fear"?

 

[dantheman]

Simple really - just don't put yourself in a position where you could be construed as disturbing sensitive wildlife.

Wasn't it Beria (lol) who said that "if you're innocent you have nothing to fear"?

The only problem is that being 'innocent' is not that straightforward half the time - social media pile-ons are a bit like council estate pile-ons - people don't always know the full facts and situation, and the wrong person/innocent can get picked on.

 

[pppppvvvv]

The only problem is that being 'innocent' is not that straightforward half the time - social media pile-ons are a bit like council estate pile-ons - people don't always know the full facts and situation, and the wrong person/innocent can get picked on.

I can think of at least 2 occasions in my youth...
An Olive Backed Pipit that was constantly walking towards birders.
I was a little slow in reacting and the next thing I was stood frozen with the Pipit walking between my tripod legs.

Another, twitching a Wader that I got to the site very early to see, no one around, saw it was moving along the shore, so hunkered down further along the shore, armed with my camera, and it came ridiculously close to me. We're talking a couple of metres.
I glanced back, and there were a couple of dozen other Twitchers watching from a respectable distance, about 20 metres back.

I didn't flush either of these birds, but felt uncomfortable all the same.

On either occasion, anyone arriving late would have thought, "what the actual *** .!"

Apart from the realisation I was spending a lot of time chasing birds in the UK, that were more easily enjoyed in more relaxed circumstances trips to their home turf, it was this "pressure" and situations like this that convinced me to give up Twitching as such.

 

[ClarkWGriswold]

I can think of at least 2 occasions in my youth...
An Olive Backed Pipit that was constantly walking towards birders.
I was a little slow in reacting and the next thing I was stood frozen with the Pipit walking between my tripod legs.

Another, twitching a Wader that I got to the site very early to see, no one around, saw it was moving along the shore, so hunkered down further along the shore, armed with my camera, and it came ridiculously close to me. We're talking a couple of metres.
I glanced back, and there were a couple of dozen other Twitchers watching from a respectable distance, about 20 metres back.

I didn't flush either of these birds, but felt uncomfortable all the same.

On either occasion, anyone arriving late would have thought, "what the actual *** .!"

Apart from the realisation I was spending a lot of time chasing birds in the UK, that were more easily enjoyed in more relaxed circumstances trips to their home turf, it was this "pressure" and situations like this that convinced me to give up Twitching as such.

It was a bit like that at the Turkestan Shrike in Bempton Peter. On arrival I thought the photographers were far too close. But the bird kept flying along the bush until it was alongside me as well😂 Appeared oblivious to us all.

 

[opisska]

Unpopular opinion: people are concerned about the welfare of birds at twitches mostly because they don't want the bird to be driven away before they have a look at it. Most rarities die soon anyway and even if they don't, their fate is largely irrelevant to the future of the species.

Disturbance is much more relevant at breeding sites, more for some species than for others, and for some species also at wintering sites, notably for those that are really picky about them. But the "behaviour at twitches" is a social issue, not one of conservation.

 

[JTweedie]

Another, twitching a Wader that I got to the site very early to see, no one around, saw it was moving along the shore, so hunkered down further along the shore, armed with my camera, and it came ridiculously close to me. We're talking a couple of metres.
I glanced back, and there were a couple of dozen other Twitchers watching from a respectable distance, about 20 metres back.

I didn't flush either of these birds, but felt uncomfortable all the same.

I remember a long time ago walking along the beach at Aberlady Bay and hunkering down to take photos of the Sanderlings that were pottering about in the surf. They were only a few metres from me and I thought they were being confiding, but when I think back to it I think that I was probably too close. I think I let the birds' behaviour get the better of me as I honestly thought at the time that they weren't showing any fear, and perhaps they weren't. But I can't know that for sure, and I know now to give birds like this more space to be themselves and not worry about a lumbering human nearby. However there are some species - Turnstones for example - that will quite happily come and walk right past your feet. You don't go to them, but they'll come to you.

I think this is the problem when people are sharing photos or videos of dogwalkers worrying birds on beaches and estuaries. If a person has been asked to be aware and they show they don't really give a toss, then fair enough, share away. But I think a lot of dogwalkers just see birds flying around and think it's just what birds do and they don't connect their, or their dogs' behaviour, to the birds' behaviour.

 

[dantheman]

Unpopular opinion: people are concerned about the welfare of birds at twitches mostly because they don't want the bird to be driven away before they have a look at it. Most rarities die soon anyway and even if they don't, their fate is largely irrelevant to the future of the species.

Disturbance is much more relevant at breeding sites, more for some species than for others, and for some species also at wintering sites, notably for those that are really picky about them. But the "behaviour at twitches" is a social issue, not one of conservation.

Really?!?!

Of course there is trampling of vegetation/habitat, disturbing other commoner species also present, the bad press it gives twitching (and thus birding) etc. There can also be a lot more people present at a rarity (some of which are just a bit off-course and haven't actually left the gene pool) than at a breeding or wintering site.

But yes ...