Posted by Simon Litten on March 23, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Hi all
I've a kingfisher excavating a nest five minutes walk away from me at the moment. Access around the site is restricted by the terrain and the only available spot to set up a hide is about 10m from the nest itself.
Aware that I need a licence to photograph them at this distance - at this time of year - I checked out the Natural England website to see about applying for one. One of their criteria is...
"If you have not held a photography licence during the last three years you must provide images you have taken of six diferent non-Schedule 1 species at the nest"
Now I don't do nest photography - I'm totally against it - but in order for me to photograph my kingfisher on the route to its nest it appears I must first risk disturbing six birds that 'don't matter' before hand
This can't be right, can it? I'd rather work un-licenced if that's the case.
Has anyone on the forum with licences had to provide this kind of 'proof of elegibilty'? Or am I looking at the wrong form.
Help!
Simon
Posted by John Robinson on March 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Ring Bristol Licensing Sectionand ask them. I usually do and its always worked.
I had had schedule 1 licences on several occassions and if it is expertise in nest photography they want to question, ,they will ask to see examples of your previous work in that type of photography and sometimes with references. The last time I asked what distance from a nest constituted "Disturbance" and they couldn;t tell me.
That was for a baited Peregrine 200yds off the nest site. They seem to think that with todays gear there is no need to do nest photography any more. - in the old days we had no choice.
JR
Posted by Simon Litten on March 23, 2011 at 2:21 PM
Cheers John, I'll get in touch with them as it all seems counter-intuitive to me as I've no intention of doing any nest photography with the kingfisher, just simple 'bird on a stick' stuff.
As you say, back in the day you had little choice and nest photography was often the only way. But camera gear has moved on a pace since then yet Natural Englands licencing requirements are still based around old methods. I bet there's an awful lot of people out there working un-licenced.
Simon
Posted by David Kjaer on March 23, 2011 at 3:38 PM
Hi Simon
Once they have young the adults will bathe everytime they leave the nest, diving into the water a number of times from a suitable perch. If you put a suitable perch in the stream or river at least 30 metres from the nest hole there is a good chance they will use it frequently if you are in a hide and you will be far enough away not to cause any disturbance so you will not require a licence.
As John has said NE can't quote a distance from the nest as this varies from species to species and individuals. However when you are sure that your presence is not causing any disturbance and the birds are behaving naturally - no licence is required. The key word is 'disturbance'
- introduce the hide to the final position over a period of time - do not simply erect it on day 1
- unless you enter and leave under cover of darkeness you need someone to walk you to and from the hide - general belief is that most birds (except corvids) cannot count more than 1, the buddying system ensures that any bird "clocking you" believes the hide remains empty.
Posted by John Robinson on March 24, 2011 at 4:56 PM
This is interesting too. This reply was sent to someone who wanted to do some Kingfishers on a very public site. Notice the last line !
JohnR
Sir
Kingfishers are protected under schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and it is therefore an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb them while they are nest building or are in, on or near a nest with eggs or young. Our guidance states that:
A photography licence is only needed if the photography is likely to cause disturbance to the birds at or near the nest or the dependent young. Disturbance has been defined as an activity that influences the behaviour of the birds. Where birds are nesting in a public place or in front of a permanent hide and are acclimatised to the presence of people that the act of taking pictures does not alter behaviour then a licence is not required. In such cases the onus is on the applicant to justify, if challenged, the fact that the birds were not disturbed.
Posted by Simon Litten on March 24, 2011 at 6:39 PM
That's disturbing reading isn't it, John. It implies that they only issue a licence if you're LIKELY to disturb the birds! Why would they consent to that!!!
As for that last sentence...
"DID you disturb the birds?"
"No."
"Oh, okay then!"
That's just un-policeable!
The more I look into this the more I think it's absolute nonsense and about forty years out of date. It all needs a review. Scrap the photography licence, issue guidlines, keep it an offence to intentionally disturb the nest. Simples! Perhaps just issue a seperate licence for photography INSIDE the nest.
If I do decide to photograph the birds (still undecided - over-saturated market and all that) I'll work un-licenced I think. I know the subject, I'm passionate about the subject and I've studied the subjects behaviour, I've no intention of disturbing the nest or stressing the birds (I've already stopped a company from doing repairs at the site until I give them the all clear) so I don't see how a slip of paper will make me any better a photographer. If I can't photograph them un-noticed then I won't try to - the same principle I apply to every other wild subject, schedule 1 or not!
Schedule 1 is not nonesense and neither is it confined to photography it is required for any form of study research, ringing as well as photography. It is there to protect the successful breeding of threatened species. Now there is a question whether kingfishers should remain as a schedule 1 bird as they are not as threatened as they used to be following the hard winters of the 1960s, but they still are so you are stuck with it.
John's last reference is out of context here, it is dealing with birds that have chosen to breed near a public hide and not the placement of a public hide near a nest. - you are considering the placement of a hide near to a breeding site. There is potential for disturbance as it is outside of their normal routine and existing habitat
If it is so contentious in your mind then clearly you feel there is an issue here so why are you even trying? - develop a site further away and get more satisfaction from doing so.
Posted by Simon Litten on March 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM
Mike.
But surely you must agree that it's a little odd that in order for me to photograph these kingfishers on route to their nest - at a distance - I must first take up nest photography, an aspect of wildlife photography that is nowadays generally frowned upon? Because that, as far as I can see, is what is required to gain this licence. Or am I mistaken? If I was on a mission to set up a camera INSIDE the nest then I can understand it, but I'm not.
Perhaps my statement was too broad sweeping and theatrical regards it being nonsense as I fully appreciate the merits of a licence with regards to working closely with endangered species for study and handling. But photography wise I think its a little behind the times. With todays gear you don't have to be breathing down the nest-hole, you can work 10m away concealed with a long lens without posing any threat to the birds.
As I said previously, camera gear has improved so much since their application form was drawn up (they even ask for transparencies!) that I think the requirements are out-dated and, for me, unethical.
Discussion
8 repliesI've a kingfisher excavating a nest five minutes walk away from me at the moment. Access around the site is restricted by the terrain and the only available spot to set up a hide is about 10m from the nest itself.
Aware that I need a licence to photograph them at this distance - at this time of year - I checked out the Natural England website to see about applying for one. One of their criteria is...
"If you have not held a photography licence during the last three years you must provide images you have taken of six diferent non-Schedule 1 species at the nest"
Now I don't do nest photography - I'm totally against it - but in order for me to photograph my kingfisher on the route to its nest it appears I must first risk disturbing six birds that 'don't matter' before hand
This can't be right, can it? I'd rather work un-licenced if that's the case.
Has anyone on the forum with licences had to provide this kind of 'proof of elegibilty'? Or am I looking at the wrong form.
Help!
Simon
I had had schedule 1 licences on several occassions and if it is expertise in nest photography they want to question, ,they will ask to see examples of your previous work in that type of photography and sometimes with references. The last time I asked what distance from a nest constituted "Disturbance" and they couldn;t tell me.
That was for a baited Peregrine 200yds off the nest site. They seem to think that with todays gear there is no need to do nest photography any more. - in the old days we had no choice.
JR
As you say, back in the day you had little choice and nest photography was often the only way. But camera gear has moved on a pace since then yet Natural Englands licencing requirements are still based around old methods. I bet there's an awful lot of people out there working un-licenced.
Simon
Once they have young the adults will bathe everytime they leave the nest, diving into the water a number of times from a suitable perch. If you put a suitable perch in the stream or river at least 30 metres from the nest hole there is a good chance they will use it frequently if you are in a hide and you will be far enough away not to cause any disturbance so you will not require a licence.
As John has said NE can't quote a distance from the nest as this varies from species to species and individuals. However when you are sure that your presence is not causing any disturbance and the birds are behaving naturally - no licence is required. The key word is 'disturbance'
David
- introduce the hide to the final position over a period of time - do not simply erect it on day 1
- unless you enter and leave under cover of darkeness you need someone to walk you to and from the hide - general belief is that most birds (except corvids) cannot count more than 1, the buddying system ensures that any bird "clocking you" believes the hide remains empty.
JohnR
Sir
Kingfishers are protected under schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and it is therefore an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb them while they are nest building or are in, on or near a nest with eggs or young. Our guidance states that:
A photography licence is only needed if the photography is likely to cause disturbance to the birds at or near the nest or the dependent young. Disturbance has been defined as an activity that influences the behaviour of the birds. Where birds are nesting in a public place or in front of a permanent hide and are acclimatised to the presence of people that the act of taking pictures does not alter behaviour then a licence is not required. In such cases the onus is on the applicant to justify, if challenged, the fact that the birds were not disturbed.
As for that last sentence...
"DID you disturb the birds?"
"No."
"Oh, okay then!"
That's just un-policeable!
The more I look into this the more I think it's absolute nonsense and about forty years out of date. It all needs a review. Scrap the photography licence, issue guidlines, keep it an offence to intentionally disturb the nest. Simples! Perhaps just issue a seperate licence for photography INSIDE the nest.
If I do decide to photograph the birds (still undecided - over-saturated market and all that) I'll work un-licenced I think. I know the subject, I'm passionate about the subject and I've studied the subjects behaviour, I've no intention of disturbing the nest or stressing the birds (I've already stopped a company from doing repairs at the site until I give them the all clear) so I don't see how a slip of paper will make me any better a photographer. If I can't photograph them un-noticed then I won't try to - the same principle I apply to every other wild subject, schedule 1 or not!
Simon
John's last reference is out of context here, it is dealing with birds that have chosen to breed near a public hide and not the placement of a public hide near a nest. - you are considering the placement of a hide near to a breeding site. There is potential for disturbance as it is outside of their normal routine and existing habitat
If it is so contentious in your mind then clearly you feel there is an issue here so why are you even trying? - develop a site further away and get more satisfaction from doing so.
But surely you must agree that it's a little odd that in order for me to photograph these kingfishers on route to their nest - at a distance - I must first take up nest photography, an aspect of wildlife photography that is nowadays generally frowned upon? Because that, as far as I can see, is what is required to gain this licence. Or am I mistaken? If I was on a mission to set up a camera INSIDE the nest then I can understand it, but I'm not.
Perhaps my statement was too broad sweeping and theatrical regards it being nonsense as I fully appreciate the merits of a licence with regards to working closely with endangered species for study and handling. But photography wise I think its a little behind the times. With todays gear you don't have to be breathing down the nest-hole, you can work 10m away concealed with a long lens without posing any threat to the birds.
As I said previously, camera gear has improved so much since their application form was drawn up (they even ask for transparencies!) that I think the requirements are out-dated and, for me, unethical.
Simon