Whilst UKNP is not the place for discussing politics, it is the place for discussing and highlighting the laws, and the changes to these laws, that govern how we can behave whilst in the field. An update on these laws is this threads intent.
Those that attended the last UKNP conference will have heard Anthony O’Connor from NE discussing the legalisation that surrounds how people (including photographers) can interact and pursue certain wildlife species. I think it came as a surprise to some that not only do we have to comply with English, Scottish, Welsh or N.Irish legalisation (and the laws are not necessarily the same in all four countries) but we also have to be cognisant of the EU Habitats legalisation which, as part of the EU, we have ‘bought’ into.
Recently there has been a change to the legalisation concerning the UK's 73 species of animals and plants that have been designated as European Protected Species (EPS). This change occurred last November (2007).
Whilst I would urge you all to read further about the new laws at NE website, a possible interperation, understanding and summary of one of the changes is the following;
Apparently, you now need a license not only to collect an EPS (as has always been the case) but also to possess any specimen or artefact of an EPS collected since June 1994.
Now this is a bit of a problem to anybody that
a) finds a dead EPS species or
b) finds a part or an EPS species
and removes it from where currently it is in order to photograph it.
For example, say you found a bat (any species) or dormouse lying dead, the discarded skin of a smooth snake, or skeletal remains of certain species of cetacean... well, to avoid any possibility of prosecution, I’d photography them in-situ unless you have an EPS license for that specific species in that specific country. The theoretical potential outcome if you move (possess) them to a more favourable location - say your garage studio, if found guilty of breaking the directive, is up to six months sentence and/or a fine.
If you move them and if you got caught (by whom?) would you be prosecuted?. I hope, if caught, they would understand what little impact you are having! But who knows what they will think? Do I want any of us to be the test case,No!
Now before you respond saying this is an ass, I agree. It's posted here for information only so no posting personal politics and conspiratory theories below this please.
But the laws wrong! That could be, but unfortunately it’s the law and as usual it's a law made by a well meaning, but generalist, few. I doubt they considered, or sought the views of, photographers.
Many thanks to Martin Willing for bring this again to my intention, and many thanks to those I phoned for telling me they were none the wiser even though they work in the field most weeks.
PS I think there are also about another 20 specific changes of ‘countryside’ legislation also in the pipeline. I’d keep up with your studies if you want to understand what will affect your hobby.
Equivalent legislation exists in the US and elsewhere, where it is an offence to remove artefacts, including items such as antlers, from National Parks for example. The US National Parks Service actually sets camera traps on prominent artefacts to catch people in the act.
Tom
It may be worth mentioning the law regarding birds and Schedule 1 species such as Kingfishers at the nest. Defra still will not give a definition as to what is "at the nest "
There's a lot ofstuff on the net done very close !! I am not saying Kingfishers should be on the Schedule 1 list - but they are !
Cheers
JR
As with all laws, until a test case is brought before a court certain definations are usually hard to come by. Thankfully in this country you are usually innocent until proven guilty.
Its very obvious that we (as photographers) would only move (possess) an artifact in order to move it to a better location to record/photography it, unfortunately this very act could provide the evidence that could incriminate us. Joy
N.B. I have been emailed asked if there is a service I get this information from, alas no. I obtain it from reading and taking an interest in conservation and the laws that pertain to conservation. I would suggest that if your intent is to sell images of the more 'rarer' schedule or EPS species that you do the same otherwise, as eluded to in the above paragraph, you could innocently provide evidence that could incriminate you to a.n.other.
Discussion
6 repliesThose that attended the last UKNP conference will have heard Anthony O’Connor from NE discussing the legalisation that surrounds how people (including photographers) can interact and pursue certain wildlife species. I think it came as a surprise to some that not only do we have to comply with English, Scottish, Welsh or N.Irish legalisation (and the laws are not necessarily the same in all four countries) but we also have to be cognisant of the EU Habitats legalisation which, as part of the EU, we have ‘bought’ into.
Recently there has been a change to the legalisation concerning the UK's 73 species of animals and plants that have been designated as European Protected Species (EPS). This change occurred last November (2007).
Whilst I would urge you all to read further about the new laws at NE website, a possible interperation, understanding and summary of one of the changes is the following;
Apparently, you now need a license not only to collect an EPS (as has always been the case) but also to possess any specimen or artefact of an EPS collected since June 1994.
Now this is a bit of a problem to anybody that
a) finds a dead EPS species or
b) finds a part or an EPS species
and removes it from where currently it is in order to photograph it.
For example, say you found a bat (any species) or dormouse lying dead, the discarded skin of a smooth snake, or skeletal remains of certain species of cetacean... well, to avoid any possibility of prosecution, I’d photography them in-situ unless you have an EPS license for that specific species in that specific country. The theoretical potential outcome if you move (possess) them to a more favourable location - say your garage studio, if found guilty of breaking the directive, is up to six months sentence and/or a fine.
If you move them and if you got caught (by whom?) would you be prosecuted?. I hope, if caught, they would understand what little impact you are having! But who knows what they will think? Do I want any of us to be the test case,No!
Now before you respond saying this is an ass, I agree. It's posted here for information only so no posting personal politics and conspiratory theories below this please.
But the laws wrong! That could be, but unfortunately it’s the law and as usual it's a law made by a well meaning, but generalist, few. I doubt they considered, or sought the views of, photographers.
Many thanks to Martin Willing for bring this again to my intention, and many thanks to those I phoned for telling me they were none the wiser even though they work in the field most weeks.
PS I think there are also about another 20 specific changes of ‘countryside’ legislation also in the pipeline. I’d keep up with your studies if you want to understand what will affect your hobby.
It may be worth mentioning the law regarding birds and Schedule 1 species such as Kingfishers at the nest. Defra still will not give a definition as to what is "at the nest "
There's a lot ofstuff on the net done very close !! I am not saying Kingfishers should be on the Schedule 1 list - but they are !
Cheers
JR
As with all laws, until a test case is brought before a court certain definations are usually hard to come by. Thankfully in this country you are usually innocent until proven guilty.
T
see EPS and NE and EPS Q&A at DEFRA of which question 6 and its answer set the tone.
Its very obvious that we (as photographers) would only move (possess) an artifact in order to move it to a better location to record/photography it, unfortunately this very act could provide the evidence that could incriminate us. Joy
N.B. I have been emailed asked if there is a service I get this information from, alas no. I obtain it from reading and taking an interest in conservation and the laws that pertain to conservation. I would suggest that if your intent is to sell images of the more 'rarer' schedule or EPS species that you do the same otherwise, as eluded to in the above paragraph, you could innocently provide evidence that could incriminate you to a.n.other.