Teesmouth Bird Club

Quote from: jch on December 23, 2013, 01:02:19 PM
lens performed flawlessly yesterday Jaybee........

regards

jch

Pleased your happy Craig.
All the best for 2014

Sent a reply Craig

Had the lens from new but in April this year a New Silent Wave Motor, bayonet mount, hood, name plate, AF connector were replaced by Nikon servicing simply because I intended keeping the lens.
Circumstances changed and I acquired a 300 F2.8.
The F4 therefore surplus to requirements.
Lens comes with box and pouch.
£520 ono
Can meet up locally

Surplus to requirements.
3 X EN-EL3e - £20 each

Nikon Mount
£200
Can meet up locally.

Quote from: paulraper on January 22, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
Best pics again Dave.

Agreed.
Daves stills and your videos Paul have the bar set so high that no one else that I know of can hold a candle anywhere near the quality.
Pin sharp images and rock steady videos mean that myself and everyone else come a very distant second.

OK - £200

I wrote this a few years ago now and posted it on Bird forum.
It's a tongue in cheek account of how to achieve stunning results like me and scuzz (Rays former name)
I could have updated it but couldn't be bothered to be honest.
Everything you need to know to get great photos is included.
Enjoy (hopefully)
http://northeastwildlife.co.uk/looking.pdf

Toby give me a new set of lungs, a new heart and replace the blocked femoral artery in my left leg and maybe I could get out and about.
Otherwise good practice from me would require the need for to take my car along the likes of Greenabella or around Saltholme.
To a lesser extent try and get rid of the stupid bollards preventing access to Greenabella and I might be able to reach the place and continue my voluntary work with INCA building up a photographic database of the seals.

Putting aside my futile attempts in earlier posts and being accused by ColD of not contributing to the debate here are my thoughts.
Please note that this is just me thinking out aloud and in no way means I condone any type of disturbance etc.
Also reference to laws is down to a a quick Google on what I thought may be relevant.

First of all I have to wonder how much of the bad behaviour reported is in fact bad behaviour or simply our annoyance or frustration at what some one is doing.
We have all had people walk directly in front of us when we have been trying to view/photograph something.
We have sat on a mile long empty beach waiting for waders to come towards us when a dog walker decides to walk straight towards the birds.
Annoying certainly but not something we can do anything about other than complain.

As to what someone may be doing "in the field" so to speak I would suggest it can be broken down into two categories.
1) The behaviour/actions of the person are illegal.
2) The behaviour/actions of the person are not illegal.

The first is easy and requires no action our part other than phoning the police (or landowner in the case of tresspass) and reporting the matter.
I have done so with regards fly tipping on a reserve and illegal pheasant traps and the system works.
Hopefully the relevant authority will deal with the matter swiftly.
I would add that there is a need to be 110% certain the activity is illegal because I think there is such a thing as unlawful accusation.

The second is far more tricky as if it is not illegal activity then it follows that it is lawful activity regardless of how annoying it is to others.
You could approach the "offender" and have a word and he may be very obliguing and say that even though what he is doing is in no way wrong he is happy to conform to your request.
Or he may politely (or not so politely) tell you to bog off and mind your own business.
From that moment I would think you are going to be on the back foot.
If you continue to try and persuade him either on your own or with others however politely then (and if I am wrong I'll gladly stick my foot into the appropriate opening) things like intimidation, his right to lawful pursuit of his chosen activity and his right for you not to impose your beliefs/morals etc on him could come into play.

I think approaching an individual is fraught with possible repercussions and (not an opt out ) I am of the opinion that the eastiest thing to do is just have a good moan/rant and hope he isnt there next time.

Other ideas forwarded.
Password protected members area on forum - never worked and never will work when members are happy to give out the password to non members. Durham bird club have a password protected forum and sighting page that quite honestly is a joke as getting hold of the password is so easy.
Taking a photograph of the person in question or naming and shaming on the forum. Hope you, the club and the webmaster are prepared for the fall out on that one even if the persons activity is highly illegal.
Allowing photographs etc but not mentioning the location of a bird on the forum. Bit like telling people a garage has knocked 50p off a litre but not telling them which garage.
If he happened to be a bird club member you could exclude him from the club but on what grounds? Getting better views than us.

A lot of this behaviour has to be put into perspective.
Each day I imagine tens of thousands of people are out in the countryside. Out of those maybe one or two behave in an annoying way. It isnt an every day occurance and certainly isnt the bulk of people doing it.
Count on one hand virtually the number of posts on this forum since it started that relate to "bad behaviour"

Sorry if the post is so negative but to be frank unless the behaviour is illegal and something tangible can be done all the effort in the world is not going to work unless the person is responsive.
Articles in photographic magazines, posters on fence posts, educating people are never going to deal with what we might see as bad practice but what the "offender" may have every right to do.

As a side note
I suppose the best guide to how someones presence is affecting a bird/birds/animal is to see what affect it is having on that bird etc.
Lets suppose we are all ranting about a "photographer" (legally) stood in the middle of a field when we are all stood 100 yards further away which we think is a more appropriate distance.
If the guy is happily taking photos of birds immediately around him then it has to be presumed that he isn't disturbing them in any way. If that is the case then on what grounds could we possibly try and educate him??

Quote from: Col D on November 19, 2012, 08:55:09 PMThis 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.

Quote from: Col D on November 19, 2012, 06:49:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Col D on November 19, 2012, 06:49:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Col D on November 19, 2012, 06:49:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Jamie on November 19, 2012, 04:35:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Jamie on November 19, 2012, 03:49:49 PM
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??

As a balance to this "debate".
Often times complaints are made about the noise of cameras going off in a hide when a decent bird lands in front.
Commonly called rattle mode - I term it the olivetti club - it is simply the mechanics of DSLR cameras and to be truthful little can be done about it..
One tip that I hope people will adopt is to set the camera in single shot mode when taking those first shots.
A freshly arrived bird is certain to be spooked when it hears 30 bren guns going off in it's ear the moment it touches ground.
However the bird will react only slightly to single shots taken every 30 seconds or so but will by and by stay put.
To be honest most of those first 10,000 shots will be dumped anyway.
Once the bird is settled it really will pay little attention to however fast the frame rate of the camera can work and people with cameras can  rattle away to their hearts content whilst not disturbing people with binoculars
To those who don't like the sound of rattling cameras I find them no more noisy than constantly bleeping pagers.