Some people really should know better (1 Viewer)

[tom mckinney]

I remember during the red tops' lynch the paedo campaigns a few years ago, when the consultant paediatrician had her house vandalised by some retards who hadn't quite fully understood the poor woman's job description.

Not keen on all of this naming and shaming. Remember the poor bloke who had his car registration put on here for allegedly blocking access during the White-crowned Sparrow twitch? And then, I seem to remember, it transpired that he had been given permission by the house owner to park there and he'd done absolutely nothing wrong.

They flushed waders. They flushed a Skylark. It's terrible behaviour for birders/photographers and in this case they seem to be genuinely guilty, but there's something just a bit rotten about all of this new naming and shaming photo gallery stuff. It don't be sitting well with me at all.

So before anyone starts posting names or saying "well it looks a bit like person A and he comes from Wigan", or "I know the bloke on the left, he's pure evil, and I think it was him who murdered all them pensioners in Hyde," it would be very wise to make sure you have got your facts absolutely straight.

Also, I go birding quite a bit, you know here and there, occasionally pop into a hide, visit the odd feeding station every now and then. So here's my question: am I now the last remaining birder in the whole world whose entire birding experience ISN'T ruined by new-age-long-lens-no-fieldcraft-too-much-money-all-the-gear-no-idea DSLR photographers?

 

[Farnboro John]

it can be pretty frustrating though to be in position for hours only to have someone walk up, spook everything, ask if you're photographing anything special, then wander off...........thus, the wait begins again..

God yes, I was on St Agnes in May a few years back and I crawled a hundred yards flat on my belly towards three Golden Orioles that were using a thin bush as a perch from which to grab insects. I had halved the distance to them with no observable change in their behaviour when suddenly all three legged it fast and far.

"Nice aren't they" commented the stupidest ancient idiot I've ever seen - did he think I was "panther-crawling" for the sake of my health????!!!! He was lucky not to have his brains dashed out with a handy lump of granite. Mind you it would have been a very small target and a very thick skull.

John

 

[Jane Turner]

They flushed waders. They flushed a Skylark. It's terrible behaviour for birders/photographers and in this case they seem to be genuinely guilty, but there's something just a bit rotten about all of this new naming and shaming photo gallery stuff. It don't be sitting well with me at all.?

Tom - I see it like this, there are three broad scenarios

1. They are naive (and slightly rude) newbies - in which case hopefully they may act differently next time.

2. One or more of them is an established bird photographer and hence really should know better and has chosen to knowingly jeopardise the safety of birds for personal gain.

3. One or more of them has previously disturbed a schedule one breeding species to the point at which it deserted amongst other alleged misdemeanors

People are sensibly responding privately.

 

[Newton Stringer]

: am I now the last remaining birder in the whole world whose entire birding experience ISN'T ruined by new-age-long-lens-no-fieldcraft-too-much-money-all-the-gear-no-idea DSLR photographers?

YES !!!

The witch hunt continues...... I'm off to build a bonfire !!...

 

[s.g.]

Tiresome isn't it..?
Same old stories and same old problems that increase each year with burgeoning numbers of folk who really haven't got a clue....photographers and birders with no idea of fieldcraft...[and no real solutions in sight i fear...except unsavory extreme one's].....ie...'culling'...

ps..folks i've seen with 'camo' clothing are often the worst...['some' seem to think this renders them invisible like they were flippin sci-fi alien 'predators'....

couldnt have put it better myself, well said.
s.g.

 

[Veracocha]

Well, if, and its two big ifs, some of the other allegations I have heard about the crew are true (and these guys are the same), then actually one serious offence has been committed previously. If they are attempting to make money from selling the photographs taken like this, then I think potential buyers should know.

If they really are just naive novices, then its different - hence wanting to know who they are.

An allegation does not constitute a criminal offence. However, if an offence was proven I expect the law would not discriminate between the experienced birder or a naive novice. I am still intrigued as to what you will do should you succesfully identify those in the pictures? do you expect them to answer to you personnaly? Unless you have strong evidence to show these people acted recklessly I suspect they would have a reasonable case to suggest you have marked their character.

 

[Jane Turner]

An allegation does not constitute a criminal offence. However, if an offence was proven I expect the law would not discriminate between the experienced birder or a naive novice. I am still intrigued as to what you will do should you succesfully identify those in the pictures? do you expect them to answer to you personnaly? Unless you have strong evidence to show these people acted recklessly I suspect they would have a reasonable case to suggest you have marked their character.

If I find out that they are newbies I'll drop it. If I find out they are experienced and selling photographs (I have had it suggested (and purely in the alleged category until a firm ID is made) that one of them has previously entered in Wildlife photographer of the year, I shall be going public in the birding and photography press about what I and my friend separately witnessed). The current list of wholly unsubstantiated allegations beyond what we personally witnessed I shall be passing to the previous and current Merseyside police Wildlife protection officers.

 

[Veracocha]

If I find out that they are newbies I'll drop it. If I find out they are experienced and selling photographs (I have had it suggested (and purely in the alleged category until a firm ID is made) that one of them has previously entered in Wildlife photographer of the year, I shall be going public in the birding and photography press about what I and my friend separately witnessed). The current list of wholly unsubstantiated allegations beyond what we personally witnessed I shall be passing to the previous and current Merseyside police Wildlife protection officers.

Then if you are succesful in your quest and you achieve a suitable outcome I will take my hat off to you.

 

[halftwo]

Jane,

I reckon I saw them at the Parkgate raptor watch today (camo & camera gear similar). (Of course they had to behave there.) Keeping themselves to the far end of the crowd.

 

[Morg]

I was at Vane Farm the other day and there was a photographer sticking his arm out of the hide playing brambling song/greenfinch calls at some stupid volume with a MP3 player!!

I couldn't bring myself to say anything to him, but I thought that it was a bit on the odd end of the behaviour spectrum.

Mind you I suppose I did tape lure silvery-fronted tapaculo a few years ago... erm don't flame me!

Geoff

 

[tom mckinney]

YES !!!

The witch hunt continues...... I'm off to build a bonfire !!...

I've got a Christmas tree in the back that you can have.

Jane, I'm with you; they did wrong; the scales of Justice are tilting in your favour. But a mutual friend of ours once had his good name rubbished on here and turned out to be completely innocent, so ever since then I've had a bit of a bad feeling about this naming and shaming stuff.

 

[Jane Turner]

That's why I'm trying to get as many facts straight as possible!

 

[DEREK CHARLES]

Hi Jane,
This is a very difficult area and i think you are wrong to post these photos in this way. I have had a look carefully at the photos, could you tell me exactly what offence they are quilty off? To me they don't appear to be committing any offence, certainly if i was a wildlife officer or a police officer you would certainly need statements from people who seen actual offences occuring to back up these photos.
What if you had a personal grudge against these people and are posting on Birdforum to try and garner support? The post by VC65 Birder could also be out of context. I have been at twitch's here where after a period of time a photographer(s) has asked the people present could he/they move forward for better pictures and everyone has agreed. Photos could then be taken of them away from the crowd and apparently hassleing bird(s) when this clearly isn't the case.
If you posted photos of me on the Internet and accused me i would be straight to a solicitor and i am sure they would be in contact with both you and Birdforum. I am amazed that the Birdforum moderators have let you away with this.
If this sounds as if i am against you far from it, i admire what you are tyring to do if not the way you are doing it. If these guys were hassling roosting waders shame on them but you should have started a thread on this without the photographs. Next time ring the Police Wildlife Liason Officer and get them on the scene and let them handle it.

All the best

derek

 

[Farnboro John]

I think Derek has it backwards. I am against unsupported allegations against anybody but photographs are not unsupported allegations, they are one of the best objective facts you can have to support allegations. As for publicising individuals whose names are not known when they do something unpalatable (whether or not it is actually a criminal offence) - isn't that exactly what CCTV footage on Crimewatch is used for? If its OK for them it must be OK for Jane and others.

To involve a solicitor the individual will have to stick their head above the parapet - perfect!

John

 

[Jane Turner]

Derek - if I had a grudge against them, I'd know who they were!

 

[DEREK CHARLES]

I think Derek has it backwards. I am against unsupported allegations against anybody but photographs are not unsupported allegations, they are one of the best objective facts you can have to support allegations. As for publicising individuals whose names are not known when they do something unpalatable (whether or not it is actually a criminal offence) - isn't that exactly what CCTV footage on Crimewatch is used for? If its OK for them it must be OK for Jane and others.

To involve a solicitor the individual will have to stick their head above the parapet - perfect!

John

John i have looked very carefully at the photographs and can't see any offence being committed. Could you and Jane tell me what they are? Just based on the photographs and not Janes testimony. Crimewatch show CCTV footage of people who in the police's opinion have committed offences and if you are comparing Crimewatch to this i think you are way off. Is this now Birdforum Crimewatch!
I would support this if it was the police looking for these peoeple and not Jane.

derek

 

[DEREK CHARLES]

Derek - if I had a grudge against them, I'd know who they were!

Jane i am on your side i believe your story 100% just think your wrong to post the photos.

derek

 

[David Smith]

So does anyone know who they are? Wouldn't have put the ringleader at 18 stone. He was well wrapped up against the cold - that is sea ice behind him in the pic.

Pretty certain that the one in the 2nd photo (in camo suit with Canon 500mm f4 is from Wigan and one of his associates is from Moore-if I am wrong please excuse and correct me
I met these 2 yesterday and they had been photographing the Dunlin & Mergansers at Hoylake after being at Leasowe.
I must say I only spoke with them briefly and the older guy (in camo suit) seemed very pleasant.
Hopefully if the 'guilty' persons see this thread they can re-think their methods without unpleasantness as I imagine many people would do similar without thinking until someone else advises them.

 

[deeestuary]

Fully, 100%, support Jane for 'outing' these people.

Somebody has mentioned that the people involved were not breaking the law and Jane mentioned it being a Ramsar site. More relevant in this case is the fact that it is a Special Protection Area under the EU Habitats directive and also a SSSI. If people deliberately disturb birds on these sites they can be prosecuted, somebody in the UK was prosecuted by Natural England two years ago for allowing his dog to constantly disturb birds on a SSSI. Not an easy prosecution to bring due to difficulty of proving whether it is deliberate, but the powers are there.

As many will already know we had similar problems this time last year, see:
http://www.deeestuary.co.uk/news0209.htm#rarity
also there was the incident last summer (or was it 2008?) of the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker nest at Marbury Country park which was deserted seemingly because of harassment by photographers.

I agree that the last thing we need is a birders versus photographers feud, but it has certainly been my experience that there has been an increase in these sorts of incidents over the past three or four years - and I'm afraid it does seem to be mostly photographers at fault. I should add that I know many of the leading photographers in the local area and have immense respect for their talent, I know that that they, if not others, put the birds first.

 

[deeestuary]

If this had happened at West Kirby the Dee Estuary Voluntary Wardens (mostly local birders) would have dealt with this incident. We avoid confrontation, instead we talk to people and try by friendly persuasion and education to stop people and their dogs from disturbing the birds. 99% of the time it works extremely well. An important point is that we are there officially on behalf of Wirral Borough Council - we have badges and leaflets with the council logo on. If things do get nasty we have the backup of the local rangers and even the community police. This means even the people involved in this particular incident would probably have backed down and moved on before the birds were disturbed. In other words we have much more impact then would a single birder/walker remonstrating with these people by themselves. You may wonder why there isn't a similar scheme at Hoylake? There are historical reasons why our main effort is centered at West Kirby but the main reason is that we just don't have the man power to cover both areas. There is some wardening at Hoylake but it tends to be on a more ad hoc basis and there might well have been nobody there on Saturday.
See http://www.deeestuary.co.uk/warden.htm.
The wardens have tried to raise awareness about this problem by writing to the national birding press without much success. I know it annoys me when you read about all these bird photography competitions without a single word about how photographers should behave with the birds.