Bird Nest Photos

[StuartDH]

Hi nightshade,

Without wanting to run off topic, as you know, WAB is very much community-driven and we're keen for as many people as possible to get involved in the admin of the site.

Our admin forums are there for design issues, trialing new features, adding/moving sections etc, so I think this topic is more than a basic admin decision. It's a topic that'll effect everyone, raising awareness of issues that many hadn't even considered. It also keeps us very transparent, there's nothing to hide and it helps explain our policy from the outset, thereby reducing the number of emails/complaints we'll get in the future.

We've always said that we aim for WAB to be 'your' site and it's one of the qualities that sets WAB apart. As a result, I think that wherever possible, it's only fair that we debate major changes amongst the community, rather than simply dictate the policy of the few (by this I mean me and the other trustees). By opening the debate we've had some good arguments for and against that will ultimately enable us to make a more informed decision.

Stu

[nightshade]

It does appear to run a lot deeper than it first appears, thanks for the explanation (AND the chance to have a say!)

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

With PMs and emails (another 6 this morning), the forum is more split than it might first appear in this thread. I've also had personal comments from two large orgs and a uni to say that it's not entirely a thumbs-down situation. It's a topic that's worthy of good debate and I'm glad that so many people have got involved. We owe it to the community to explore all oppportunities and let everyone have their say.

Stuart, have you considered why you have received PM's and emails on this subject when the authors could, just have easily, have contributed their opinions to the debate here?


The contributors to this thread have placed their opinions here for peer review; it would be a bad thing, for transparency's sake, to allow unreviewed 'background noise' to colour the decision. A 'good' debate should be open.


Which organisations and uni's? What question did you ask? It's about context and transparency again.


It seems to me that you have skimmed over some of the very important points that have already been made here, Stuart; if you don't understand the possible implications of some or any of them, please ask.

[StuartDH]

Steve, as you mentioned in your first thread, you'd been looking at the site for several months before diving in, so maybe you're in a better position to say why some people don't post on the forum?

I know that some people feel a bit out their depth or intimidated as they've been heavily slammed for any opinions they've had in other forums in the past. We're a friendly bunch here and that sort of thing doesn't generally happen, but we won't twist anyone's arms if they don't want to post.

The orgs, and everyone else that I've spoken to, know about the thread and they're free to post if they want, otherwise I'll respect the privacy of their emails. We haven't asked any specific questions, other than just to add their comments on the thread. However, the opinions that I've received are just exactly that, they're not official representative statements.

I appreciate what you're saying about the unreviewed comments, although I have posted the main content of many of the PMs and emails in the above thread for review. I wouldn't necessarily call it 'background noise' as it contains some very valid points on both sides. However, I don't think we'll be running a poll or including the emails as 'votes' because at the moment it looks like the 'for bird nest photos' are ahead by 7, even with a minority of 'for' posts in the open debate.

I can assure you we're certainly not skimming over the important points, that's why this debate is out in the open, and we're taking it all into consideration. However, if there's anything that you think we're skiiming over then please highlight it and we'll take a closer look. Through this debate and more, I think we're getting a good understanding of the possible implications from a variety of angles - for the birds, the charity, environment education, public awareness etc. We won't ignore any comments, for or against, whether they're in the thread, email or PMs - they're all valid and making a good contribution.

Stuart

[John]

I have every sympathy with Stuart's plight here. As most of you know I travel the length and breadth of Britain in pursuit of my Birdwatching hobby and have also been one of the more vociferous campaigners against nest photos but consider what nests can already be photographed without interference and tell me what is right or wrong about placing them in the Gallery.

Places like Loch Garten & Loch of Lowes and Rutland Water with their Ospreys. These are viewed from the hides and can be filmed without any problem of interference to the nest or birds.

Water birds such as Swans, Coots, Moorhens etc are out in the open where 100's of people walk everyday. No problem there of interference.

Hirrundines. Swallows and House Martins build there nest's in the most amazing places where there is extremely close contact with Humans. Sand Martins can buld nests also where there are large congregations of humans. ( I can think of Minsmere for one where the Sand Martin bank is at the back of the Visitor Centre with a viewing area by the side of the bank where the birds nest.

Out on cliff faces where you have various nesting Auks, Shags and gulls etc that go about there business when humans are virtually standing amongst them. This also goes for a few Tern Species also.

Then there are the garden birds that can virtually nest in your face.

These are just a few examples of nest photos that do not cause harm or interference to the birds.

What do we do with these?

I am just playing at Devil's Advocate here but would solicit opinions on this from those (like me) that are campaigning against nest photos.

John

[StuartDH]

And to add to this John, we'd welcome further comments on the following:

Do we allow nestbox cams?

Do we ban images in the Gallery, but allow them in the reference section for educational purposes?

Do we allow old or abandoned nests?

If we go for no nest images and therefore no notices, how do we best keep the subject in the public eye and raise awareness of the issues?

I still wonder how the RSPB came to the conclusion that they should sell nest images on rspb-images.com for £20 per print, but don't think that would encourage others to go and take similar images for free.

I've also just looked at birdforum - they've got a notice that images of nests, eggs etc shouldn't be posted. However, I then did a search for 'nests' and found 134 pages of results, with many images of nest and chicks - so I've also asked them how they decide what gets through and what doesn't?

[Helen]

Abandoned nests aren't alway as they appear to be. Some nests are used each year, and to see an empty nest and think it ok, is simply wrong. The birds may well be in the area, and in the process of maintaining the nest for future use.

The best way to keep it in the public eye, is post a large sign saying No nest images, and explaining the reasons why, giving plenty of references. You can't be clearer than that.

It would be interesting to know on what basis the "fors" are basing their argument?

So far, I haven't seen anything that has implied the "yes" people are putting the welfare of the birds first. Please point them out to me if I have overlooked them.

Those against, include A Wildlife Police Office, a rehabilitation person, an experienced birdwatcher, plus people who have a passion for wildlife. Their reasons are first and foremost, the welfare of the bird.

Let's also not forget, that ANYONE can join this site. By that I mean someone who is less than responsible when taking images. Yes folks, it does happen on occasion with forums. That is a downside of running an internet forum. So, if the images are allowed, how on earth does anyone verify that the images were taken responsibly. In short, we can't. It's as simple as that.

To believe that everyone who joins WAB in the future, will adhere to the photography guidelines is, at best, extremely naive, at worse, foolish.

[StuartDH]

Hi Helen,

I agree about the abandoned nest and occasional rogue photographer etc, and that's why almost all of the 'for' opinions that I've received have said that it should be heavily monitored - only images from reputable sources, staff etc.

The arguments 'for' are largely concerned with using the images for education, raising public awareness and interest in wildlife and the issues, providing images that mean others won't have to take their own. Considering the way that people find nest images (probably through a google image search), it's also been suggested that adding a notice to the image upload page, forums, reference section etc, simply wouldn't get many views by the sort of people who really need to be looking at that type of information. Adding a notice to every nest image on the other hand would be seen by everyone who has found the images on Google.

Done responsibly, all of the above actually lead, directly or indirectly, to the protection of birds.

I don't think that any of the 'for' camp want to see birds harmed in any way, and they appear to be very concious of the welfare issues of the birds. As a result, many of their comments have highlighted various conditions and laws that they feel would have to be respected to ensure that the images have been taken responsibly. I don't think they're naive enough to consider that a free-for-all would work and none of them have suggested that this should be an option.

Stu

[fbcpmike]

Originally Posted by John

(edited) I have every sympathy with Stuart's plight here. Water birds such as Swans, Coots, Moorhens etc are out in the open where 100's of people walk everyday. Hirrundines. Swallows and House Martins build there nest's in the most amazing places where there is extremely close contact with Humans. Sand Martins can buld nests also where there are large congregations of humans. Out on cliff faces where you have various nesting Auks, Shags and gulls etc that go about there business when humans are virtually standing amongst them. This also goes for a few Tern Species also.
Then there are the garden birds that can virtually nest in your face.

These are just a few examples of nest photos that do not cause harm or interference to the birds. What do we do with these?

I am just playing at Devil's Advocate here but would solicit opinions on this from those (like me) that are campaigning against nest photos.
John

Devil's Advocate, Ah usually my role !, at least it has been.

John, whilst against nest photos, your list could suggest some solution to the problem but with addittional work for the Gallery moderators. Species nests that should NOT be shown at all (with an explanation why) - All raptors and schedule 1 birds, and species that could be shown - Swans, Coots, Moorhens, garden species etc, birds that almost intentionally nest in mans way.

Originally Posted by Helen

It would be interesting to know on what basis the "fors" are basing their argument?

From my side, It would be a shame to just say NO, start down that road and you could end up with no photos on WAB, just in case, after all our wildflowers are protected, it's illegal to disturb some, better take their photos down too, they might dig the bluebells. Flippant yes, but I try to be a realist, it's going to happen, lets educate and try and minimise the risk. NO, does not do that, YES but..... allows you to educate.

Yes there are the prats out there who will disturb the birds/nests but aren't they just as likley to do that anyway ?. We've had enough of them over the years, the idiots in our park who sit at the bench by the pond and stone (and recently shoot) the Geese, Ducks, Morehens, they do not care about the animals and even less that I posted a birds nest photo. Is' very sad, it's modern life, and sometimes it really makes my blood boil, but I do what I can. (That bench has recently been taken out to minimise just this problem, it will be relocated away from the pond)

Stuart, you have your work cut out with this one, sorry. There are fors and againsts, we could go on with this for weeks so could I suggest -

1. Within WAB's information somewhere explain the issues for & against along with a basic explanation of the law, for all to see.
2. Split the photos into 2 groups - A. Raptors and schedule 1 birds, restricted access - and B. birds who could be shown with a minimum risk, Swans, Coots, Moorhens, garden species etc.

[digi]

I will make this brief since the discussion has been well thrashed out. Personally I don't want to see nests in the Gallery, it would be very difficult to moderate images and we would end up with comments like you let others on but not mine. We have enough work in the Gallery ensuring the current info is correct and adding keywords, without trying to decide what nest image should or should not be accepted. The final decision is obviously Stuarts.