Man fined £600 for disturbing rare sea eagle on nest in Mull
Oil worker first to be convicted under new act
By Rita Campbell
Published: 07/10/2008
AN OIL worker has become the first person to be convicted under the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004 for disturbing a rare eagle while on holiday on Mull.
Alistair Waters, 54, of 331 Lee Crescent North, Aberdeen, was fined £600 at Oban Sheriff Court yesterday. He was convicted of recklessly disturbing a protected white-tailed sea eagle while it was on or near a nest at An Cairealach, near the Grasspoint road, Lochdon, on the Inner Hebridean island on March 4.
An egg failed to hatch after the eagle flew off the nest while Waters took photographs of it as it swooped over the tree, squawking.
Waters, who pleaded not guilty, said he did not know the nest was there when he took a morning walk near where he was staying.
The police wildlife crime officer for Mull, Finlay Christine, said there were two large signs at the entrance to the Grasspoint road warning it was a conservation area, it was illegal to disturb wildlife, and telling the public where they could watch eagles without disturbing them.
Waters said: “I don’t rem-ember seeing any signs. I got two-thirds of the way up the hill when I saw the eagle flying around, then I saw the nest. I sat down 30 metres from the nest site, watched the bird and took a few photographs.” A local initiative known as Eagle Watch was in full swing as it was during the breeding season.
A local bed-and-breakfast owner spotted Waters near the nest and phoned Constable Christine, who went to the scene.
The officer told the court all nine sea eagle nests on the island were monitored closely and that an egg had been laid at the nest in question in the previous 24 hours.
He said: “When an eagle is disturbed, it flies off the nest and makes a creeing call and swoops over the nest back and forward. It is my opinion it had been disturbed from the way it was flying and calling.”
Fining Waters, Sheriff Douglas Small said: “I have to take account of the consequences of this reckless conduct.”
Mull officer for the RSPB bird charity David Sexton said: “We welcome responsible tourists to Mull. What happened here wasn’t responsible, it was reckless.”
He said the fine was appropriate, adding: “The economy benefits to the tune of £1.5million to £2million a year from people coming to Mull to see the sea eagles.”
Outside court, Waters said he was “in the wrong place at the wrong time”.
Posted by Major Gilbert on October 8, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Whilst on holiday on Mull just after this happened I got the chance to speak to The Wildlife Crime Officer. He appeared to be very hot on this sort of thing so to any one going next year(me included) I think it wise to beware.
Also I noticed one or two people have posted images of Otter that they say they have stalked.
Whilst on Mull this year It was brought to my attention by one over enthusiastic so called Wildlife tour operator that I could be arrested even though I sat at the side of a loch and had an Otter swim directly towards me. As it swam along the edge of the lock I retreated to the road and took images from off the roadway. Other people were attempting images with smaller lenses near the edge of the lock. So anybody sporting a big lens may need to look out as I think they may be targeted.
at least they caught and fined him - how can you NOT know a sea eagle nest is protected.
Major - even though the Otter comes under EPS laws I think the "so called Wildlife tour operator" was probably wrong.
T
Posted by Major Gilbert on October 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I have to say Tom I thought so to but just bit my bottom lip and said nothing.
It did however play on my mind for quite sometime and to a certain degree spoilt things a bit.
I was convinced it was a reaction based on the Sea Eagle episode and as said I think that this next year will be one of real caution as the target will be anybody with a big lens.
The other thing was the tour operator arrived mid way of the Otter appearing and I was in the way of him showing his clients the view. Mull is becoming very popular and I can well imagine the tour boys see the photographer as a bit of a threat. Having said that one perticular guide always seems pretty good and will at least hold a conversation with you.
Major.
Posted by szekiat chan on October 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Another case of the overzealous arm of the law? Pardon the cynicism...
I agree completely with that sentiment - the last time it happened to me I was with Dave_K on Cairngorm where we where 'told' we could not have cameras 'here'. The person was wrong and was very politely told so pointing out to them the relevant laws and (gently) their error. - they left in a happy frame of mind.
Posted by Peter Cairns on October 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM
An interesting thread and ditto the Snettisham post.
It is interesting that nature photography is widely regarded as intrusive and even frivolous. It's often perceived as a self-indulgent and unnecessary impingement on the welfare and behaviour of the target species. I would say that in some - if not many cases - this could be argued legitimately. But what is the difference between the impact of photographers and the impact of say, ringers or researchers?
My personal view is that the role of the professional photographer (in a conduct context not remunerative) is under-valued within the scientific/conservation community but that may partly be our own fault. If we all undertake to spend time learning about our subject, understanding more of its ecology, being safe in our knowledge of what is legal and what isn't and behaving in a way that eliminates the opportunity to criticise our actions, then our credibility will improve and so perhaps, will the chances of cooperation from NGOs and the like?
As I understand it, where the law (W&C 5 amended by CROW act ) relates to disturbance of otters, it is the holt and places of rest that are protected. So in theory, unintentionally disturbing a feeding otter e.g lurking beside the shore and having the otter approach you and possibly scent or see you, shouldn't really be considered an offence.
However, under the Conservation (habitats) directives you have this: "The Habitats Regulations make it illegal to: Deliberately disturb an otter in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of otters or the ability of any significant group of otters to survive, breed, rear or nurture their young... " To me this seems to be open to wide interpretation.
If the police consider an offence has been committed and prosecute, it will be up to the magistrate to decide, based on the testimony of expert witnesses.
I recently observed this entire process where a prosecution was brought under the W&C Act relating to disturbance of a protected mammal and it was quite an eye-opener. All kinds of issues seemed to weigh on the case and the quality of expert testimony was crucial.
Cheers
Terry
Posted by John Robinson on October 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I have raised the issue of over zealous ringing for years now and it goes nowhere because I am told " its science" One example of many-
Some birders( about 15 )on Spurn lately were shouted to by a ringer. _
" Hey you lot !- get over here if you want to photograph a yellow browed warbler - we've just got one in the net "
Now that sort of behaviour is totally against BTO rules as far as I know.
But its science
John Robinson
Posted by Paul Thomas on October 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM
However, under the Conservation (habitats) directives you have this: "The Habitats Regulations make it illegal to: Deliberately disturb an otter in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of otters or the ability of any significant group of otters to survive, breed, rear or nurture their young... "
Unless, apparently, you want to build a toll bridge between the mainland and a certain island
As long as you're not near the holt there's no problem.
My personal view is that the role of the professional photographer (in a conduct context not remunerative) is under-valued within the scientific/conservation community but that may partly be our own fault. If we all undertake to spend time learning about our subject, understanding more of its ecology, being safe in our knowledge of what is legal and what isn't and behaving in a way that eliminates the opportunity to criticise our actions, then our credibility will improve and so perhaps, will the chances of cooperation from NGOs and the like?
Paul said "As long as you're not near the holt there's no problem."
That was rather my point. Common sense might dictate that this statement is true, but as Pete pointed out " ...nature photography is widely regarded as intrusive..." so if it was felt that photographers needed to be reined in and the police wanted to make an example of one, there may well be a problem.
Terry
Posted by Elliott Neep on October 9, 2008 at 3:22 AM
Hi Major. I know the 'enthusiastic wildlife tour operator' very well and he is also the island's greatest prevaricator and agitator, not to mention a complete hypocrite. His intentions were not honourable, i.e. the protection of the otter. His focus is squarely on the enjoyment of his clients (and his payment) in an undisturbed environment. He knows he has neither the skill or knowledge (nor the inclination) to stalk wildlife, but won't hesitate to ask a pro whether they know were the wildlife is! Pay him no credence.
He has been known to call the local police because a photographer as disturbed 'his viewing pleasure' but please believe me when I say that he is neither liked nor respected by the islanders, merely tolerated.
As has been stated, it is not 'illegal' to stalk otters (and there will be no grounds for arrest. you will probably just be asked to 'move along'), but it is 'illegal' to disturb them at their place of rest, or physically disturb their resting place (the holt).
However, if anyone chooses to follow a wild otter please, please, please learn your field craft before you venture on to the island and always make the animal's welfare your absolute priority. If you do accidentally disturb one, then leave and do not pursue any further.
Posted by Major Gilbert on October 9, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Thanks for that Elliott. It did upset things at the time and that was my reason for bringing it up as I wanted others to be aware. The chap disturbing the SE did a lot more damage than that alone. Terry echoed my thoughts as to if the police feel like being a bit OTT I have this feeling that next year they will go steaming in and rein someone in possibly for no real reason.
My personal view is that the role of the professional photographer (in a conduct context not remunerative) is under-valued within the scientific/conservation community but that may partly be our own fault.
The role is always undervalued Pete... until they want free/cheap images for their scientific reports, annual reports, press releases etc.
Discussion
14 repliesGary
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/874888?UserKey=
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Man fined £600 for disturbing rare sea eagle on nest in Mull
Oil worker first to be convicted under new act
By Rita Campbell
Published: 07/10/2008
AN OIL worker has become the first person to be convicted under the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004 for disturbing a rare eagle while on holiday on Mull.
Alistair Waters, 54, of 331 Lee Crescent North, Aberdeen, was fined £600 at Oban Sheriff Court yesterday. He was convicted of recklessly disturbing a protected white-tailed sea eagle while it was on or near a nest at An Cairealach, near the Grasspoint road, Lochdon, on the Inner Hebridean island on March 4.
An egg failed to hatch after the eagle flew off the nest while Waters took photographs of it as it swooped over the tree, squawking.
Waters, who pleaded not guilty, said he did not know the nest was there when he took a morning walk near where he was staying.
The police wildlife crime officer for Mull, Finlay Christine, said there were two large signs at the entrance to the Grasspoint road warning it was a conservation area, it was illegal to disturb wildlife, and telling the public where they could watch eagles without disturbing them.
Waters said: “I don’t rem-ember seeing any signs. I got two-thirds of the way up the hill when I saw the eagle flying around, then I saw the nest. I sat down 30 metres from the nest site, watched the bird and took a few photographs.” A local initiative known as Eagle Watch was in full swing as it was during the breeding season.
A local bed-and-breakfast owner spotted Waters near the nest and phoned Constable Christine, who went to the scene.
The officer told the court all nine sea eagle nests on the island were monitored closely and that an egg had been laid at the nest in question in the previous 24 hours.
He said: “When an eagle is disturbed, it flies off the nest and makes a creeing call and swoops over the nest back and forward. It is my opinion it had been disturbed from the way it was flying and calling.”
Fining Waters, Sheriff Douglas Small said: “I have to take account of the consequences of this reckless conduct.”
Mull officer for the RSPB bird charity David Sexton said: “We welcome responsible tourists to Mull. What happened here wasn’t responsible, it was reckless.”
He said the fine was appropriate, adding: “The economy benefits to the tune of £1.5million to £2million a year from people coming to Mull to see the sea eagles.”
Outside court, Waters said he was “in the wrong place at the wrong time”.
Also I noticed one or two people have posted images of Otter that they say they have stalked.
Whilst on Mull this year It was brought to my attention by one over enthusiastic so called Wildlife tour operator that I could be arrested even though I sat at the side of a loch and had an Otter swim directly towards me. As it swam along the edge of the lock I retreated to the road and took images from off the roadway. Other people were attempting images with smaller lenses near the edge of the lock. So anybody sporting a big lens may need to look out as I think they may be targeted.
Major
Major - even though the Otter comes under EPS laws I think the "so called Wildlife tour operator" was probably wrong.
T
It did however play on my mind for quite sometime and to a certain degree spoilt things a bit.
I was convinced it was a reaction based on the Sea Eagle episode and as said I think that this next year will be one of real caution as the target will be anybody with a big lens.
The other thing was the tour operator arrived mid way of the Otter appearing and I was in the way of him showing his clients the view. Mull is becoming very popular and I can well imagine the tour boys see the photographer as a bit of a threat. Having said that one perticular guide always seems pretty good and will at least hold a conversation with you.
Major.
I agree completely with that sentiment - the last time it happened to me I was with Dave_K on Cairngorm where we where 'told' we could not have cameras 'here'. The person was wrong and was very politely told so pointing out to them the relevant laws and (gently) their error. - they left in a happy frame of mind.
It is interesting that nature photography is widely regarded as intrusive and even frivolous. It's often perceived as a self-indulgent and unnecessary impingement on the welfare and behaviour of the target species. I would say that in some - if not many cases - this could be argued legitimately. But what is the difference between the impact of photographers and the impact of say, ringers or researchers?
My personal view is that the role of the professional photographer (in a conduct context not remunerative) is under-valued within the scientific/conservation community but that may partly be our own fault. If we all undertake to spend time learning about our subject, understanding more of its ecology, being safe in our knowledge of what is legal and what isn't and behaving in a way that eliminates the opportunity to criticise our actions, then our credibility will improve and so perhaps, will the chances of cooperation from NGOs and the like?
Pete
However, under the Conservation (habitats) directives you have this: "The Habitats Regulations make it illegal to: Deliberately disturb an otter in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of otters or the ability of any significant group of otters to survive, breed, rear or nurture their young... " To me this seems to be open to wide interpretation.
If the police consider an offence has been committed and prosecute, it will be up to the magistrate to decide, based on the testimony of expert witnesses.
I recently observed this entire process where a prosecution was brought under the W&C Act relating to disturbance of a protected mammal and it was quite an eye-opener. All kinds of issues seemed to weigh on the case and the quality of expert testimony was crucial.
Cheers
Terry
Some birders( about 15 )on Spurn lately were shouted to by a ringer. _
" Hey you lot !- get over here if you want to photograph a yellow browed warbler - we've just got one in the net "
Now that sort of behaviour is totally against BTO rules as far as I know.
But its science
John Robinson
Unless, apparently, you want to build a toll bridge between the mainland and a certain island
As long as you're not near the holt there's no problem.
Paul
Exactly, I could not agree more.
Paul said "As long as you're not near the holt there's no problem."
That was rather my point. Common sense might dictate that this statement is true, but as Pete pointed out " ...nature photography is widely regarded as intrusive..." so if it was felt that photographers needed to be reined in and the police wanted to make an example of one, there may well be a problem.
Terry
He has been known to call the local police because a photographer as disturbed 'his viewing pleasure' but please believe me when I say that he is neither liked nor respected by the islanders, merely tolerated.
As has been stated, it is not 'illegal' to stalk otters (and there will be no grounds for arrest. you will probably just be asked to 'move along'), but it is 'illegal' to disturb them at their place of rest, or physically disturb their resting place (the holt).
However, if anyone chooses to follow a wild otter please, please, please learn your field craft before you venture on to the island and always make the animal's welfare your absolute priority. If you do accidentally disturb one, then leave and do not pursue any further.
Major
The role is always undervalued Pete... until they want free/cheap images for their scientific reports, annual reports, press releases etc.