Given the pressure that Caper's are under in Scotland, you're probably better looking to go abroad to avoid disturbing them here and you're probably likely to get better shots...I think Magnus has/had a workshop - check UKNP Events & Workshops.
Deadline for publication is this Friday so many thanks but i need some urgent local knowledge.
Posted by Mike Smith on March 25, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Capercaille are Schedule 1 species in Scotland, you need a license to photograph them at their lek in Scotland - the lek is a specified license requirement location, not just the nest environment- it was an amendment brought in fairly recently as a specific Scottish amendment
Posted by Danny Green on March 25, 2008 at 6:45 PM
I think this is a prime example of where the law and knowledge of it fails in this country and why people that are coming into nature photography as beginners should be made aware of the laws and practices. Do you really think in the unlikely event you were to be given a lience that you could possibly photograph lekking capercaillies within three days.
As Mike said, this is a fairly recent change to the Schedule - it is NOT in either of the copies I have on file. As I make my living from wildlife photography I would hardly call me a beginner! I have now ordered a new copy of the licencing schedules etc as my copy is obviously out of date.
You will also note Danny, since you're obviously very experienced with the licences that you do need to put down a specific location on the application - just the forest's name won't do as you know.
Yes, it is unlikely I would get a licence in three days but as I said, as Mike said, its a newish amendment that I was not aware of and I am very greatful that this amendment has been brought to my attention so I may obtain a copy of up to date information. That is why this website is so important. It helps all professional and amateur photographers alike to keep up to date on changes they may, quite innocently, not be aware of.
I agree with you Danny, in some respects, that the system lets us and the wildlife down, there has been no announcement anywhere as far as I can see that changes to the wildlife act in this respect have been made. With the coming tourist season then I would have thought there would have been something on the RSPB website at least.
I wonder how you get on, legally, I mean with an organised lek watch such conducted by the RSPB - surely you should need a licence for that as well - or does the RSPB have one that you come under for that purpose?
I must ask while on my Black Grouse watch in two weeks time.....
Posted by Mike Smith on March 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I haven't been to the RSPB Abernethy forest Caper lek watch site, but I should imagine that viewing is by telescope just like the Aviemore Osprey centre from a fixed wooden hide/structure - so no disturbance involved at all
As with the Stone Curlew hide in Norfolk, you can get extremely lucky, if a bird decides to wander up to a fixed structure, I call that fair game - but to specifically set up standard dome/cube photographic hides at a lek site is probably contravening the law - depending upon distance and the site involved/contemplated.
The whole schedule 1 species list needs bringing up to date, it is hopelessly inaccurate given the state of bird populations in GB now.
Posted by Danny Green on March 26, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Hello Jan
Capercaillies are at their most sensitive of disturbance during the lekking time and this law was brought in to protect them as such, this law change was published in a few mags like the RSPB Birds but as wildlife photographers we must research all info regarding this and not ask a question like yours on a forum like this, if you had gone looking for a lek and disturbed the birds you not only put yourself in trouble with the law but you also tarnish the reputation of other wildlife photographers in the process. I have no experience of licences for capercaillies in this country because I would not want to put the remaining birds under this kind of stress. If you had not heard of this law change surly as a person who makes your money out of wildlife photography would be aware at how critical capercaillie numbers are in Scotland.
Which side of bed did you fall out of today! A bit more tact and diplomacy would be in keeping with the ethos of the forum.
FWIW, the new details are stupidly difficult to find doing any web research - all you can find are old project sites, half of which it's anyone's guess if they're running still. Even searching for details on SNH's website isn't very helpful - especially as they seem to have changed their urls from .org.uk to .gov.uk and haven't updated their google links (they need to provide some redirects!). Searching on Natural England isn't of any use as they deal only with England . RSPB doesn't come up with anything immediately either... with all of them you end up going around in circles. Do you have a clear link to more detailed info on the amendment in question by any chance?
Jan,
It's rather late in the game to be managing anything for Friday, so I would think Tom's suggestion of one of the libraries would be your best bet for now. For future projects, you could try contacting SNH, or SWT or seeing if the Caper' BAP officer is still around. Odd as it may sound, you could also try contacting your local Wildlife Liaison Officer as he should be able to clarify the current law as it applies in Scotland - or find someone who can for you.
Since this is becoming a conservation issue and not photography I hardly dare to give an opinion on this forum.
But just because a country like Finland or Norway has no rules regarding disturbance, do we conclude the birds there are made of sterner stuff? Why do some feel it's ok to photograph them abroad rather than here in the UK? Is it ok to kill foreign birds but not ours?
Is it the country we're bothered about or the birds? Are we more bothered about a country, county, town or local NR getting to put a tick in its biodiversioty check boxes? These regulations keeps them unelected Brussel's quangos in a job at least!
The licensing system doesn't make any sense to me if it was about welfare. If it was, and the assumption that if they are disturbed they will die is true, then nobody should be able to photograph these animals. (Being in a hide near a nest or lek with a license is still disturbance). Or is it about our preconceived notions of rarity? Or maybe elistism for those photographers who can get licenses?
IMO, licensing is about being in "the club", and regulating those who aren't, and doing unpaid survey work on behalf of the government or some other half-baked department of it.
Hope that shaking the apple cart isn't against the law, on here at least.
As the Capercaillie are under such pressure and we are supposed to be avoiding them at all costs can someone please explain why the Forest Commission practically advertises the bird on their website?
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/Capercaille
this page tells you about the bird but does not mention that it is protected or that disturbance is a threat (see the threats bit)
at the bottom of the page is a set of links entitled "where to see Capercaillie"
If you follow this link you get to this right at the top of the page:
"You can go to ---------- where you may see Capercaille.
Capercaille lek sites in this wood. Active during the months of March and April. To keep disturbance to a minimum, please keep all dogs on the lead where our signs request it."
(I have removed the location so as not to further broadcast the fact but you can follow the link for yourself)
As you can see the only mention of disturbance is a request to keep your dog on a lead!
There then follows a list of 13 sites where you 'might see' Capercaillie. For a bird that is so endangered, so rare, and so vunerable I have to say its not much of a secret is it? And the Forestry lot will be putting helpful little signs out too....
'Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69)
This version of this statute is extracted from the UK Statute Law Database (SLD). It is not in the form in which it was originally enacted but is a revised version, which means that subsequent amendments to the text and other effects are incorporated with annotations.
There are effects on this legislation that have not yet been applied to SLD for the following years: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. See the Tables of Legislative effects and the Update status of legislation page on the SLD website.'
You can see that the information available on the governments own site are FIVE YEARS out of date.
It is surprising that even those of us who are supposed to keep abrest of the situation, rather than the general public are not manageing to keep up to date on the current laws and regulations?
In an attempt to clear this issue up it is my belief that it is illegal under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) & the Nature Conservation Act (Scotland) 2004 to:
a) Intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a Capercaillie.
b) Intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy, or otherwise interfere with the nest of a Capercaillie
c)Intentionally or recklessly obstruct or prevent a Capercaillie from using its nest
d) Intentionally or recklessly take or destroy the eggs of a Capercaillie
e) Intentionally or recklessly disturb a Capercaillie while it is nest building or is at a nest with eggs or young; or disturb the dependent young of a Capercaillie
f) Intentionally or recklessly disturb a Capercaillie while it is lekking.
Note the addition of the word recklessly as it is important; recklessly "implys that where an individual is aware of the presence of a protected species, particular care should be taken to avoid any consequent death, injury, damage, destruction or disturbance." (my emphasis)
In practice, this will mean that if capercaillie are known to be present in a forest, or are found to be present, your actions must not adversely affect (includes disturb) them.
Now ( and Dave you may need a seat here) I agree with some of what Dave has written, namely that Brussels has a lot to answer for as under the EU Birds Directive the "precautionary principle" may apply (it would apply under an estuary situation). This potentially means that if caught it is up to you to prove you are not disturbing the birds rather that the authority to prove that you are; IMHO it turns the innocent until proved guilty foundation of british law on its head.: frown: ( I would appreciate if somebody in SNH or NE who reads this, would clarify this point my PM)
Since the forestry commission list these places then Capercaillie are obviously, potentially, known to be present therefore the pursuit of the bird (definately away from a public path) onto or near the nest/lek (and the nest could be any scape) will bring you fowl of the law.
Also, if you think about this it is quite smart move my the FC for by listing all the places where you "may see" (and there is a huge difference between this an 'will see') a Capercaillie the FC have been cute because, it is my opinion, that you cannot chance upon something ( a Caper') that you have been previously informed is potentially there and therefore the reckless clause would definately applie. The result, again in my opinion, is that the FC have removed any defence of accidental encounter from all listed sites for all those that use the FC website to guide them to possible Caper' location.
My advise, in these FC advertised places (unless you have a license), would be to stay upon the public paths and if you encounter a Capercaillie do not stray from the path in order to obtain photographs.
T
N.B. With respect to the law and how it is publically made availiable unfortunately (however harsh) "ignorance of the law is no defence". As a wildlife photographer (pro or am) it is your responsibility to know and follow the law.
I would add that it is always wise to stay on the path in Forestly Commission sites in Scotland anyway. There are three reasons for this, aside from that discussed above;
1. the forestly commission carry out deer culling activities and that means a man siting on a chair up a set of scaffolding with a rifle, usually at dawn or dusk, in season, during quiet public times (i.e when I'm most likely to be there)
2. the forestly commission carry out logging activities throughout their forests and you may be in danger from falling trees and more often debrie (think I might have spelt that wrong)
3. the damn forests are mazes and the signs are bad enough on the paths let alone if you were stupid enough to venture off them!
oh and of course as another point - as far as I know, and I may be wrong, the access and paths are concessions - not actual rights of way.
As Tom points out the duty is on you to prove you were on the path and acting correctly. I therefore carry and use a GPS system in forests where any protected species may be present. I mark my positions for all photos regardless of subject and take a notebook to record which shots (by number) occurred at which reference point (on the GPS). I hope that one day I might get that lucky shot and that this will be proof enough that I was doing everything I possibly could to reduce disturbance and importantly for this discussion - remain within the law.
To clarify my initial question I was looking for information on the BEST publicly available access footpath from which the bird has previously been seen.
Any information received about non-public access places would have been used solely for the application of a future license which may or may not have granted.
Posted by Andy Astbury on March 27, 2008 at 5:44 AM
For what my opinion might or might not be worth in this matter, what I will say is this.
Everyone on this forum knows that Capper are an ultra-sensitive species and so it MUST be obvious to anyone that the species is wrapped in a maze of bureaucracy - a lot easier to hop on a plane or ferry to Europe.
Seeing as there was a deadline involved here there's some form of reward attached Jan, so I'd have been weighing up cost against this and then been on the blower to Edwin, Rene, Jeroen or their likes.
I know it sounds daft Jan but this course of action would give you what you wanted, or at least it stands a better chance, than trying to achieve the same thing with the Cappers 'down the road'.
Like I said, that's my thoughts on the matter - and to be honest it's a course of action that anyone would be wise to bare in mind for a lot of species.
Ok I think i am a bit late on this discussion but my question is this-
A few years ago a rouge male Capper decided to take over a Scottish camp site terrorising the owners chickens and anyone who got to close, whist not at the came site he spent his time smacking the local hotel window as he battled his reflection. Sadly bird like this do not tend to last long as a defensive kick from someone or i know of one case were the bird just about followed a retreating person into a car and died as the owner closed the door on him.
With a rouge male what is the legal situation, walk away? retreat to the edge of it's area and take photos of the proud bird that has just seam off another human? or simply keep the lens cap on?
Discussion
16 repliesI have been to the same wood for several days at very early ams but with no luck.
All details will be kept confidential to avoid disturbance to the birds.
Thanks.
Hope that helps a bit!
I would suggest purchasing one from an agency.
www.nhpa.co.uk
www.rspb-images.co.uk
www.naturepl.com
T
Danny
You will also note Danny, since you're obviously very experienced with the licences that you do need to put down a specific location on the application - just the forest's name won't do as you know.
Yes, it is unlikely I would get a licence in three days but as I said, as Mike said, its a newish amendment that I was not aware of and I am very greatful that this amendment has been brought to my attention so I may obtain a copy of up to date information. That is why this website is so important. It helps all professional and amateur photographers alike to keep up to date on changes they may, quite innocently, not be aware of.
I agree with you Danny, in some respects, that the system lets us and the wildlife down, there has been no announcement anywhere as far as I can see that changes to the wildlife act in this respect have been made. With the coming tourist season then I would have thought there would have been something on the RSPB website at least.
I wonder how you get on, legally, I mean with an organised lek watch such conducted by the RSPB - surely you should need a licence for that as well - or does the RSPB have one that you come under for that purpose?
I must ask while on my Black Grouse watch in two weeks time.....
As with the Stone Curlew hide in Norfolk, you can get extremely lucky, if a bird decides to wander up to a fixed structure, I call that fair game - but to specifically set up standard dome/cube photographic hides at a lek site is probably contravening the law - depending upon distance and the site involved/contemplated.
The whole schedule 1 species list needs bringing up to date, it is hopelessly inaccurate given the state of bird populations in GB now.
Capercaillies are at their most sensitive of disturbance during the lekking time and this law was brought in to protect them as such, this law change was published in a few mags like the RSPB Birds but as wildlife photographers we must research all info regarding this and not ask a question like yours on a forum like this, if you had gone looking for a lek and disturbed the birds you not only put yourself in trouble with the law but you also tarnish the reputation of other wildlife photographers in the process. I have no experience of licences for capercaillies in this country because I would not want to put the remaining birds under this kind of stress. If you had not heard of this law change surly as a person who makes your money out of wildlife photography would be aware at how critical capercaillie numbers are in Scotland.
Danny
Which side of bed did you fall out of today! A bit more tact and diplomacy would be in keeping with the ethos of the forum.
FWIW, the new details are stupidly difficult to find doing any web research - all you can find are old project sites, half of which it's anyone's guess if they're running still. Even searching for details on SNH's website isn't very helpful - especially as they seem to have changed their urls from .org.uk to .gov.uk and haven't updated their google links (they need to provide some redirects!). Searching on Natural England isn't of any use as they deal only with England
Jan,
It's rather late in the game to be managing anything for Friday, so I would think Tom's suggestion of one of the libraries would be your best bet for now. For future projects, you could try contacting SNH, or SWT or seeing if the Caper' BAP officer is still around. Odd as it may sound, you could also try contacting your local Wildlife Liaison Officer as he should be able to clarify the current law as it applies in Scotland - or find someone who can for you.
But just because a country like Finland or Norway has no rules regarding disturbance, do we conclude the birds there are made of sterner stuff? Why do some feel it's ok to photograph them abroad rather than here in the UK? Is it ok to kill foreign birds but not ours?
Is it the country we're bothered about or the birds? Are we more bothered about a country, county, town or local NR getting to put a tick in its biodiversioty check boxes? These regulations keeps them unelected Brussel's quangos in a job at least!
The licensing system doesn't make any sense to me if it was about welfare. If it was, and the assumption that if they are disturbed they will die is true, then nobody should be able to photograph these animals. (Being in a hide near a nest or lek with a license is still disturbance). Or is it about our preconceived notions of rarity? Or maybe elistism for those photographers who can get licenses?
IMO, licensing is about being in "the club", and regulating those who aren't, and doing unpaid survey work on behalf of the government or some other half-baked department of it.
Hope that shaking the apple cart isn't against the law, on here at least.
Dave
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/Capercaille
this page tells you about the bird but does not mention that it is protected or that disturbance is a threat (see the threats bit)
at the bottom of the page is a set of links entitled "where to see Capercaillie"
If you follow this link you get to this right at the top of the page:
"You can go to ---------- where you may see Capercaille.
Capercaille lek sites in this wood. Active during the months of March and April. To keep disturbance to a minimum, please keep all dogs on the lead where our signs request it."
(I have removed the location so as not to further broadcast the fact but you can follow the link for yourself)
As you can see the only mention of disturbance is a request to keep your dog on a lead!
There then follows a list of 13 sites where you 'might see' Capercaillie. For a bird that is so endangered, so rare, and so vunerable I have to say its not much of a secret is it? And the Forestry lot will be putting helpful little signs out too....
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/cukpga_19810069_en_1
'Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69)
This version of this statute is extracted from the UK Statute Law Database (SLD). It is not in the form in which it was originally enacted but is a revised version, which means that subsequent amendments to the text and other effects are incorporated with annotations.
There are effects on this legislation that have not yet been applied to SLD for the following years: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. See the Tables of Legislative effects and the Update status of legislation page on the SLD website.'
You can see that the information available on the governments own site are FIVE YEARS out of date.
It is surprising that even those of us who are supposed to keep abrest of the situation, rather than the general public are not manageing to keep up to date on the current laws and regulations?
In an attempt to clear this issue up it is my belief that it is illegal under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) & the Nature Conservation Act (Scotland) 2004 to:
a) Intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a Capercaillie.
b) Intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy, or otherwise interfere with the nest of a Capercaillie
c)Intentionally or recklessly obstruct or prevent a Capercaillie from using its nest
d) Intentionally or recklessly take or destroy the eggs of a Capercaillie
e) Intentionally or recklessly disturb a Capercaillie while it is nest building or is at a nest with eggs or young; or disturb the dependent young of a Capercaillie
f) Intentionally or recklessly disturb a Capercaillie while it is lekking.
Note the addition of the word recklessly as it is important; recklessly "implys that where an individual is aware of the presence of a protected species, particular care should be taken to avoid any consequent death, injury, damage, destruction or disturbance." (my emphasis)
In practice, this will mean that if capercaillie are known to be present in a forest, or are found to be present, your actions must not adversely affect (includes disturb) them.
Now ( and Dave you may need a seat here) I agree with some of what Dave has written, namely that Brussels has a lot to answer for as under the EU Birds Directive the "precautionary principle" may apply (it would apply under an estuary situation). This potentially means that if caught it is up to you to prove you are not disturbing the birds rather that the authority to prove that you are; IMHO it turns the innocent until proved guilty foundation of british law on its head.: frown: ( I would appreciate if somebody in SNH or NE who reads this, would clarify this point my PM)
Since the forestry commission list these places then Capercaillie are obviously, potentially, known to be present therefore the pursuit of the bird (definately away from a public path) onto or near the nest/lek (and the nest could be any scape) will bring you fowl of the law.
Also, if you think about this it is quite smart move my the FC for by listing all the places where you "may see" (and there is a huge difference between this an 'will see') a Capercaillie the FC have been cute because, it is my opinion, that you cannot chance upon something ( a Caper') that you have been previously informed is potentially there and therefore the reckless clause would definately applie. The result, again in my opinion, is that the FC have removed any defence of accidental encounter from all listed sites for all those that use the FC website to guide them to possible Caper' location.
My advise, in these FC advertised places (unless you have a license), would be to stay upon the public paths and if you encounter a Capercaillie do not stray from the path in order to obtain photographs.
T
N.B. With respect to the law and how it is publically made availiable unfortunately (however harsh) "ignorance of the law is no defence". As a wildlife photographer (pro or am) it is your responsibility to know and follow the law.
I would add that it is always wise to stay on the path in Forestly Commission sites in Scotland anyway. There are three reasons for this, aside from that discussed above;
1. the forestly commission carry out deer culling activities and that means a man siting on a chair up a set of scaffolding with a rifle, usually at dawn or dusk, in season, during quiet public times (i.e when I'm most likely to be there)
2. the forestly commission carry out logging activities throughout their forests and you may be in danger from falling trees and more often debrie (think I might have spelt that wrong)
3. the damn forests are mazes and the signs are bad enough on the paths let alone if you were stupid enough to venture off them!
oh and of course as another point - as far as I know, and I may be wrong, the access and paths are concessions - not actual rights of way.
As Tom points out the duty is on you to prove you were on the path and acting correctly. I therefore carry and use a GPS system in forests where any protected species may be present. I mark my positions for all photos regardless of subject and take a notebook to record which shots (by number) occurred at which reference point (on the GPS). I hope that one day I might get that lucky shot and that this will be proof enough that I was doing everything I possibly could to reduce disturbance and importantly for this discussion - remain within the law.
To clarify my initial question I was looking for information on the BEST publicly available access footpath from which the bird has previously been seen.
Any information received about non-public access places would have been used solely for the application of a future license which may or may not have granted.
Everyone on this forum knows that Capper are an ultra-sensitive species and so it MUST be obvious to anyone that the species is wrapped in a maze of bureaucracy - a lot easier to hop on a plane or ferry to Europe.
Seeing as there was a deadline involved here there's some form of reward attached Jan, so I'd have been weighing up cost against this and then been on the blower to Edwin, Rene, Jeroen or their likes.
I know it sounds daft Jan but this course of action would give you what you wanted, or at least it stands a better chance, than trying to achieve the same thing with the Cappers 'down the road'.
Like I said, that's my thoughts on the matter - and to be honest it's a course of action that anyone would be wise to bare in mind for a lot of species.
A few years ago a rouge male Capper decided to take over a Scottish camp site terrorising the owners chickens and anyone who got to close, whist not at the came site he spent his time smacking the local hotel window as he battled his reflection. Sadly bird like this do not tend to last long as a defensive kick from someone or i know of one case were the bird just about followed a retreating person into a car and died as the owner closed the door on him.
With a rouge male what is the legal situation, walk away? retreat to the edge of it's area and take photos of the proud bird that has just seam off another human? or simply keep the lens cap on?
I would like to know what you think.
Ian Hay