Disturbance - What to do about it.......?

[Jamie]

To Answer your questions:-

Q1) So you are quite happy Jamie to be associated with the birder who throws rocks into a bush at South Gare to put up a wryneck.
A1) No but I accept that they may well be a birder even if they are badly behaved.

Q2) Or a birder throwing bricks into a hedge to put up SEOs at Raintom meadows.
A2) No but I accept that they may well be a birder even if they are badly behaved.

Q3) You are quite happy to be grouped in with these people? After all they are birders.
A3) Yes. I am willing to accept that some birders are badly behaved/uneducated and they need educating but they are still birders as they are looking at birds.

Q4) And thanks again for laying the onus on us to find a new name for ourselves.
A4) I thought you did not want to be associated with with the term photographer. Perhaps if people are addressing the good photographers they should refer to them as good photographers and leave the term photographer to refer to people with a camera )which is what I think 99.9% on here do)

Q5) Anything else you would like us to do like stay away all together.
A5) Where did I say anything like this? Where did I put anything negative about good photographers? I have no problem with photographers and take photos myself when I can be bothered as I used to take a lot of photographs before it got very popular. Now I dont bother much as many people make a far better job of it than I do and I just enjoy looking at their photos instead

[Jaybee]

I thought you did not want to be associated with with the term photographer.

Quite the opposite Jamie.
I want people who rant and rave (often with good cause) to STOP using the term photographer and use something like a guy with a camera or some bloke with a camera.
As a out and out photographer I get sick of word being used whenever there is negative feedback about someone with a camera.
Why should I be tarred with the same brush as some idiot.
I know where you are coming from with reference to anyone taking photos is a "photographer" but to me it appears that sometimes the phrase is used to mark a clear boundry between bird watchers and those whose sole interest is photographing them.
There are many ways of referring to people with cameras and if their behaviour is beyond acceptable then please simply don't give them a title they don't deserve - i.e photographer.
I could be the only one it matters to but everytime I read "Damn Photographers" or "Once again a photographer ---- " it really annoys me.
I don't disturb anything for anyone.
I prefer to wait for birds to come to me (only option I have health wise)
99% of the time I prefer to go out on my own to places no one else goes to and find stuff myself if possible.
As far as I know I don't infringe on any one elses enjoyment of their chosen hobby.
However I am a photographer - nothing else and I don't like having any sort of stigma hanging around my neck because of others actions.
All I ask (and doesn't take much more typing) is that instead of Photographer please put Guy with a camera or similar.

Out of interest - if you see someone stood yards from a barn owl box and he has a camera AND a scope - how are you going to refer to him??

[Jamie]

I would not refer to him as anything but I would have done something about it and if appropriate rung the police.

[Jaybee]

I would not refer to him as anything but I would have done something about it and if appropriate rung the police.

So just a camera he's a photographer but with a scope as well perish the thought he is referred to as a birder.
Jamie can you not see how insensed it makes people like me and other "photographers" who (hopefully) do nothing wrong feel when the blanket term photographer is used??
It might seem to you to be a very trivial gripe but believe me it is a genuine one on my part.
In any event if someone is doing wrong then why give him a lable anyway?
It isnt the camera or scope doing wrong it's the guy with them.
So it's the bloke with the camera or the bloke with the scope.
How difficult is it to have a subject "When will people learn" and a post "There was a guy with a camera intent on getting as close to a nesting penguin as possible"
I must be getting too old and losing my marbles if I can't convince you that there is a different way of doing things without upsetting even one person.

[Jamie]

I do think you are been rather sensitive but if he was looking through the scope I would call him a birder but if he was taking pictures I would call him a photographer but personally I cant get very excited about what people are labeled - its what they are doing.

Anyway, I have now had enough of this debate in which I think I was just pointing out that people do (and will do doubt continue to in some places) refer to people taking photographs as photographers.

[Col D]

Jaybee - are you really expecting this debate to descend into a discussion about semantics, at the end of the day, a guy with a camera is a photographer, what else do you expect him to do with his camera? The discussion should be about how we deal with the problem and not how we should refer to it. If you are confident that your behaviour is exemplary, which I'm sure it is, them you really shouldn't be bothered about what words are used. Regardless of what equipment people have, bad behaviour is bad behaviour and it needs addressing. People should not be afraid to approach strangers and politely explain to them where they are going wrong.

[Michael_A]

Approaching someone is not always a good idea, they may think they are right and become aggressive. (and at times they may be right). Have to say i'm leaning towards Jaybee on this one.

[Jaybee]

The discussion should be about how we deal with the problem and not how we should refer to it.

By getting a birder who takes photos to write an article in a photographic magazine explaining how things should be done??
Come on.

[Jaybee]

Jaybee - are you really expecting this debate to descend into a discussion about semantics

The more that I think about that comment then the more I say yes I do.
I hold what I do as a photographer in high regard.
I've spent 50 years and a lot of money in the pursuit of this hobby and I genuinely object to the flippant use of the term photographer whenever someone does something wrong.

at the end of the day, a guy with a camera is a photographer.

No - A guy with a camera doing the right thing can be called a photographer - a guy with a camera doing the wrong thing is just a guy doing the wrong thing.

[Col D]

Hi Jaybee, Like Jamie, I am rapidly becoming exasperated with the whole affair and your baffling obsession with the semantics. In your last posts, you have cut a section of another contributor's post in a sarcastic attempt to address my comment about how to handle the problem rather than offering a more sensible resolution yourself. This speaks volumes about your lack of commitment to the problem. I agree that writing articles will serve little purpose as it will not impact those who either don't know they are doing wrong or don't care. As I have mentioned before, handling those who don't care won't be easy but if nobody attempts to address inappropriate behaviour, then we wont be helping those who are inexperienced or naive. Both Dave Braithwaite and myself have proved that if approached in a polite and non-confrontational manner, most people will accommodate your requests, if they don't then simply walk away but if we don't try then nothing will change. It seems we have an increasing number of people who readily complain from the safety of their keyboard but are not willing to take any action. I really don't have anything further to offer as you seem unable to see past self preservation and reach the true problem.

[Ray. Scott]

It has been mentioned, that people are possibly accessing the website in a bid to find out where certain birds species are located, would It not be a better Idea to restrict access to the said sites to MEMBERS only. This would affectively help reduce the  amount of information getting into the wrong hands and in effect increase the membership to hopefully a more responsible and caring people, whether birders, photographers or both.
I'm not saying that It would totally prevent anything like this happening again, but the main question was What to do about disturbance. QUOTE by Toby. (be they walkers, photographers or birders)
The question is, would It take much doing to restrict the site to members only, which contained a front or home page where you are required to join before you can access It.
I do not see the point of being a member of the Forum If, as suggested, members are expected to post photos and withhold the info as to where they were taken.
I thought that the whole point of the forum was, to try and help other members.

Anyway there's a suggestion

[Jaybee]

This speaks volumes about your lack of commitment to the problem

HOW DARE YOU MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION.
You have no idea what I do to address wildlife related problems.
Maybe you should have asked before making such a judgmental statement.

[Col D]

Hi Ray, that might not be a bad idea, nice to see somebody else offering a reasonable suggestion. If we can all use the website with the confidence that the information we provide will only be used by experienced locals (birders and photographers) then I'm sure it would generate more submissions from both parties, a point that Stew eluded to in an earlier post. As a prime example, I have seen several parties of Waxwings recently but have chosen not to post my sightings. I posted them last year, only to find some photographers who I didn't know arriving the very next day and standing directly under the feeding tree. The Waxwings departed, leaving a berry laden tree, not something they would have done without disturbance.  Perhaps a members only area for sensitive information to run alongside the general sightings page as I know the website is a good source of information for responsible birders and photographers from outside the area who may ultimately join TBC or RSPB as a result of visiting the website and/or the area. Cleveland has always had a reputation as an extremely friendly county to bird in and I'm sure we all want to keep it that way.  As I have always said, it is not a witch hunt against photographers, its about addressing bad behaviour. Personally, I would prefer to do that by speaking directly to those concerned but I appreciate that some may not feel comfortable doing this. What I find frustrating is people who join in the debate but don't attempt to offer a solution. Our photographers are an integral and respected part of our birding community (without them our local bird report, website and indeed the walls of my study would be a much duller place) which is why I always approach people personally if I feel their actions are not appropriate rather than blame an entire section of enthusiasts. We need to not get hung up about 'tags' or feel we are all getting tarred with the same brush when this isn't the case.

[Michael_A]

I have seen upwards of 100 Waxwings in various places from supermarket car parks petrol stations and woodland edges with dozens of people around within feet of these birds. They are very tolerant of humans. If they moved on it's likely they found a bettter food store. Regarding with holding info on this forum Bird Forum and other wildlife sites have members giving sightings. Creating an us and them policy won't work, we need everybody on the same side. It's only a small minority of Birders/Photographers causing bad feelings among the vast majority of responsible Birders/Photographers.

[Col D]

Hi Michael, I disagree with your Waxwing analogy but it does prove my point exactly. This is where an in depth knowledge of the birds you are watching or photographing is essential to ensure you are not disturbing them. I agree that Waxwing are usually very confiding, indeed this has been the case with most of the flocks I have seen in Cleveland over the last 25 years but it is not always the case. People with less experience will not know this. The site I am referring to held upwards of 100 birds recently and as they have done in previous years they have stripped the trees bare before leaving. The only year this was not the case was when I published the site and people photographing them scared them off. I agree with a little fieldcraft, you can get very close to Waxwings but these people simply marched up to them and flushed them from tree to tree, preventing them from feeding and ultimately causing them to depart. When I tried to explain that they were disturbing them, they quoted the same rationale as you, stating 'Waxwings are tame and not afraid of humans'. If you follow the thread from its inception, you will see that I am not anti-photographer and indeed have a great deal of time and respect for people who do things properly. All I'm trying to do is to encourage people to politely discuss any issues they have directly with the people concerned but as you have already pointed out this is not something you are comfortable doing which I completely understand.