Guilty until proven innocent: social media and bird photography

[myotis]

I assume many will already be aware of this as its' published by Bird Guides, but for those who aren't, it might be interesting.

Guilty until proven innocent: social media and bird photography

Some birders can be far too quick to cast online opinion on how photos are taken, without necessarily knowing the facts – which can in turn damage relations and reputations, says Pete Garrity.

www.birdguides.com

 

[the black fox]

Read that this morning ,seen far to much of it over the years ,to many with a holier than thou attitude

 

[RedRobin]

There's no other way of saying it unfortunately ... That far too many, not all of course, 'birders' are up their own arses. I call them 'The Twatter Bird Paparazzi'.

 

[myotis]

Read that this morning ,seen far to much of it over the years ,to many with a holier than thou attitude

Yes, it's all too easy to pass judgement when not in full possession of the facts.

 

[Sky]

That's just one of the many reasons I would never use the likes of Twatter or Faceache.

 

[RedRobin]

That's just one of the many reasons I would never use the likes of Twatter or Faceache.

.... I find Twatter far too transient and political. Faceache has a lot to offer but it's up to you how you use it - It's extremely easy to totally avoid the stuff which it has a bad reputation for. I admin a couple of groups I created on FB, one with over 7.5K members which is a very real and valuable national resource - 'UK Dragonflies & Damselflies'.

I love Instagram - It's very inspiring but again, you need to decide what you want to see and interact with.

 

[myotis]

There's no other way of saying it unfortunately ... That far too many, not all of course, 'birders' are up their own arses. I call them 'The Twatter Bird Paparazzi'.

Not just birders, I think many "groups" or organisations have their share of such people, albeit a small one.

I was once reported by a "nature conservation organisation", to the EU, for professional incompetence (n ecological assessment), where they selectively quoted from my assessment reports as evidence of my incompetence.

To rebut the complaint, I didn't need to do much more than ask the EU officials to read the sentence before, or after, the sentences quoted, and the complaint was instantly dismissed. The complaint was truly ludicrous, it required no effort to rebut, warranted no feelings of maybe I could have done better, and provided nothing to invoke any fear of professional embarrassment.

But, it didn't stop me coming across the occasional person in the following years who on hearing my name, or my company name, ask if I was the one involved in that "dodgy" environmental impact assessment.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

This is all part of the downside of the wild, wild, witternet. In my opinion, if all forums were required to pre-moderate (AKA edit) the postings they carry, there would be far less nonsense published.

Unfortunately this won't occur until the next great pig migration flies over...

 

[sphexx]

I assume many will already be aware of this as its' published by Bird Guides, but for those who aren't, it might be interesting.

Guilty until proven innocent: social media and bird photography

Some birders can be far too quick to cast online opinion on how photos are taken, without necessarily knowing the facts – which can in turn damage relations and reputations, says Pete Garrity.

www.birdguides.com

Thanks for that. A very interesting read. As someone who knows nothing about ‘birding’ etc other than when it gets in the news, I was amazed to read that ‘organised flushing’ is a practice in bird spotting. Sounds more like something done in Mediterranean countries, though at least they eat the poor little beggars there .

 

[RedRobin]

This is all part of the downside of the wild, wild, witternet. In my opinion, if all forums were required to pre-moderate (AKA edit) the postings they carry, there would be far less nonsense published.

Unfortunately this won't occur until the next great pig migration flies over...

.... Except that to pre-moderate would be a form of censorship and consequently limit free speech and opinions even if some opinions are judged to be invalid. So much depends on an individual's point of view.

Someone on Twatter is reporting a pig migration flying in already

 

[sphexx]

.... Except that to pre-moderate would be a form of censorship and consequently limit free speech and opinions even if some opinions are judged to be invalid.

Not at all limiting of free speech. They would be able to post elsewhere or start their own webpage, blog etc. Newspapers and other media ‘pre-approve’ what goes into their products and to some extent are liable for it.

The anonymity (or apparent anonymity) is the main problem I think, which people think gives them licence to say anything that comes into their head .

 

[myotis]

The anonymity (or apparent anonymity) is the main problem I think, which people think gives them licence to say anything that comes into their head .

I'm not sure how you should deal with it, but I'm sure this has to contribute to the way people post. But there is also the other problem, that people seem to believe what is posted, but maybe only if it suits them.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Perhaps the big change that could be made (and applied to the "mainstream" media as well) might be a law requiring people to be accurate and truthfull in all communications. It would not be easy to frame or enforce but with the example of Trump behind us, it could be a necessary protection for our democracy.

 

[RedRobin]

Not at all limiting of free speech. They would be able to post elsewhere or start their own webpage, blog etc. Newspapers and other media ‘pre-approve’ what goes into their products and to some extent are liable for it.

The anonymity (or apparent anonymity) is the main problem I think, which people think gives them licence to say anything that comes into their head .

.... I had forgotten that newspapers and other media 'pre-approve' - It's under the umbrella of 'editing' of course.

I had assumed that that Andrew was suggesting that ALL forums globally should be forced to pre-moderate by legislation. Hence my response.

I don't think that people can be blamed for thinking that freedom of speech means being able to say anything which comes into their head. I guess the key is to always think before you speak.

 

[Compuwight]

Interesting read - thankyou.

 

[myotis]

Perhaps the big change that could be made (and applied to the "mainstream" media as well) might be a law requiring people to be accurate and truthfull in all communications.

Being pedantic, I don't see how its possible to ask people to be truthful because "truth" can have so many nuances. Maybe something like making it illegal "to knowingly, or recklessly, mislead"

However, I suspect the only people to benefit from this would be the lawyers.

 

[RedRobin]

Perhaps the big change that could be made (and applied to the "mainstream" media as well) might be a law requiring people to be accurate and truthfull in all communications. It would not be easy to frame or enforce but with the example of Trump behind us, it could be a necessary protection for our democracy.

.... Unfortunately humanbeings will always be prepared to lie in order to gain what they want and/or to follow an agenda. The danger of 'truth legislation' is that everyone then believes everything to be true including the lies.

I think it's best to let matters take their course as they do now. I don't believe that total transparency is in the best interests of the populace anyway.

 

[Compuwight]

I regularly publish my photographs on FB and various forums, however, I only post to well known 'Bird/Wildlife groups and my personal friends, to date all the feedback/comments have been positive and encouraging. I take great care to only observe and not interfere so I would hope not to get adverse and untrue comments, however, I accept it is only a matter of time before it happens, defriending in public and leaving groups will be my only answer. I have noticed several groups on FB now hold postings until moderated, so perhaps FB groups are self policing ?

 

[sphexx]

.... Unfortunately humanbeings will always be prepared to lie in order to gain what they want and/or to follow an agenda. The danger of 'truth legislation' is that everyone then believes everything to be true including the lies.

I think it's best to let matters take their course as they do now. I don't believe that total transparency is in the best interests of the populace anyway.

The current problem with deliberate misinformation on the web is that outrageous lies (or whatever you like to call them) get repeated (retweeted etc) more often that mundane but accurate statements. I don’t see how this will settle down if it’s just ‘allowed to run its course . The root of the problem, as I understand it, is that the US passed laws that made Facebook et al service providers like electric or gas and so not responsible for what people use them for, unlike the publishers of newspapers etc. ;(.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The root of the problem, as I understand it, is that the US passed laws that made Facebook et al service providers like electric or gas and so not responsible for what people use them for, unlike the publishers of newspapers etc. ;(.

I believe that you have placed your finger on the sore spot. By defing the owner of the URL as a publisher, it then becomes relatively simple to use existing legislation to hold them to account. This might encourage all server owners to think carefully about what they allow others to propagate via their servers.

 

[RedRobin]

I believe that you have placed your finger on the sore spot. By defining the owner of the URL as a publisher, it then becomes relatively simple to use existing legislation to hold them to account. This might encourage all server owners to think carefully about what they allow others to propagate via their servers.

.... Aren't URL owners already broadly defined as the publisher? The get-out clause is surely a matter of simply making the public statement on their website that they cannot be held responsible for someone else's opinions.

In a democracy practicing freedom of speech, what right does anyone have to control what others propagate just because they don't agree with their views or agenda?

It simply isn't practical to pre-moderate or filter everyone's posts in a forum. Facebook Group Admins have the power to temporarily or permanently approve/disapprove any chosen individual member's posts/comments before they are published but it is extremely tedious and time consuming. Hence I don't use this power in my groups. It isn't practiced here on TalkPhotography either - Miscreants are usually given a forced 'holiday' from being able to post or are banned.

 

[jerry12953]

I read this on Bird Guides yesterday but like one of the posters above I was shocked to see that "organised flushing" was a thing. Surely it is against all the ethics of birding?

 

[sphexx]

.... Aren't URL owners already broadly defined as the publisher?

Unfortunately not, they are expressly defined as NOT publishers but services, at least in the US where they are mostly based. I dont know what the law is here, we may be just following bowing to the US .

The get-out clause is surely a matter of simply making the public statement on their website that they cannot be held responsible for someone else's opinions.

That sort of disclaimer doesn’t usually work if the law says otherwise.

In a democracy practicing freedom of speech, what right does anyone have to control what others propagate just because they don't agree with their views or agenda?

We do not have “freedom of speech” here, at least in England. The law governs what you can say. And are you saying that if I publish a leaflet I’m obliged to put in it anything you want me to. Go and publish your own leaflet .

It simply isn't practical to pre-moderate or filter everyone's posts in a forum. Facebook Group Admins have the power to temporarily or permanently approve/disapprove any chosen individual member's posts/comments before they are published but it is extremely tedious and time consuming. Hence I don't use this power in my groups. It isn't practiced here on TalkPhotography either - Miscreants are usually given a forced 'holiday' from being able to post or are banned.

We’ll that’s the point, if Facebook were a publisher it would have to moderate whatever it published. Up to them how they do it.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Being pedantic, I don't see how its possible to ask people to be truthful because "truth" can have so many nuances. Maybe something like making it illegal "to knowingly, or recklessly, mislead"

However, I suspect the only people to benefit from this would be the lawyers.

There are certain groups and all the elites that are always right and truthful and everyone else must bow before them. If you fail to read up on the latest word ban list and the current fake news cycle narrative you are in for proper cancelling.
I don't do Twatter, Fakebook - all this horrible anti free speech goolag. Your birding little issue sounds like pretty much nothing in comparison

 

[RedRobin]

We’ll that’s the point, if Facebook were a publisher it would have to moderate whatever it published. Up to them how they do it.

I have noticed several groups on FB now hold postings until moderated, so perhaps FB groups are self policing ?

.... The first FB Group I created and admin was in 2013 ('UK Dragonflies & Damselflies' now 7.5K members) - Yes, FB Groups are self-policed by their Admin and appointed Moderators and always have been in my experience. Groups can be about any subject* and they can set their own rules and policies. However, there are certain sensitive subjects which may be brought to the attention of Facebook's management and consequently acted on.

* One FB Group I belong to is called 'No snowflakes' . Facebook is whatever you want it to be.

There are numerous camera and photography groups and their quality tends to rely on the quality of their Admin and Moderators. Group Admins may also decide whether to make their Group either Public or Private.

There is a subtle difference between being a publisher and making information public. And furthermore, merely providing a platform for information to be made public.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There is a subtle difference between being a publisher and making information public. And furthermore, merely providing a platform for information to be made public.

If information is accurate, then there should be no barrier to making it public. When information is not accurate, it becomes a problem. I am in favour of the widest dissemination of accurate information because that is a self evident good. We have rules about driving cars and owning firearms because their misuse can (and does) harm people. False information can harm many more people than a car or a gun, as the current pandemic is illustrating.

 

[Roberts]

There are certain groups and all the elites that are always right and truthful and everyone else must bow before them. If you fail to read up on the latest word ban list and the current fake news cycle narrative you are in for proper cancelling.
I don't do Twatter, Fakebook - all this horrible anti free speech goolag. Your birding little issue sounds like pretty much nothing in comparison

fruitcake sir ?

 

[RedRobin]

If information is accurate, then there should be no barrier to making it public. When information is not accurate, it becomes a problem. I am in favour of the widest dissemination of accurate information because that is a self evident good. We have rules about driving cars and owning firearms because their misuse can (and does) harm people. False information can harm many more people than a car or a gun, as the current pandemic is illustrating.

.... But who decides IF information is accurate? Or if it's even true?

Also, information can be unintentionally inaccurate. All information always spreads and especially via the hyperinterwebbynetthingy - Hey, my post went viral!

It is very noble to be in favour of accurate information but all the legislation in the world will not stop a significant percentage of people spreading information which may be slightly/wholly inaccurate in order to further their cause or because they happen to believe their information to be true. Some will put a spin on their claimed truths. Just check out Hot Topics on this TP forum!

People will always believe what they want to believe and what suits them. They are not going to be able to be brainwashed into doing otherwise by some dangerous 'Ministry of Truth' < More dangerous than guns. Guns and cars aren't dangerous, people are.

Look at religious doctrines - What is absolute truth for some is propaganda for others and a complete heavily propagated lie.

 

[RedRobin]

fruitcake sir ?
View attachment 319095

.... That's a very tasty looking piece of fruitcake. But do you realise that it's inedible?

 

[Cockney]

This is all part of the downside of the wild, wild, witternet. In my opinion, if all forums were required to pre-moderate (AKA edit) the postings they carry, there would be far less nonsense published.

Unfortunately this won't occur until the next great pig migration flies over...

It happens in some areas.
The GolfWRX forum do it.
When a known contentious issue is raised every post in the thread is moderater checked before public view.

 

[sphexx]

.... The first FB Group I created and admin was in 2013 ('UK Dragonflies & Damselflies' now 7.5K members) - Yes, FB Groups are self-policed by their Admin and appointed Moderators and always have been in my experience. Groups can be about any subject* and they can set their own rules and policies. However, there are certain sensitive subjects which may be brought to the attention of Facebook's management and consequently acted on.

* One FB Group I belong to is called 'No snowflakes' . Facebook is whatever you want it to be.

There are numerous camera and photography groups and their quality tends to rely on the quality of their Admin and Moderators. Group Admins may also decide whether to make their Group either Public or Private.

There is a subtle difference between being a publisher and making information public. And furthermore, merely providing a platform for information to be made public.

Yes, and there are of course the Facebook Secret Groups which are ‘moderated’ by definition I suppose. For obvious reasons, I expect none of yours you reference are Secret though the Dragons and Damsels one sounds like it might be .

 

[Cockney]

I think theres a big arguement for seperate social media platforms where a verified account is required. Bring in some accountability.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It is very noble to be in favour of accurate information but all the legislation in the world will not stop a significant percentage of people spreading information

Just as all the legislation in the world does not stop people misusing cars or guns. However, the purpose of legislation is two fold: to act as a guide for healthy minds and as a stick with which to threaten the unhealthy into compliance.

That this works in Britain's case appears to be borne out by the numbers. Gun crime in the U.K., where firearms are strictly controlled, is historically third lowest in the high income countries (see: 2010 homicide suicide rates high-income countries - Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia). Similarly, traffic deaths in the U,K are in the 6th lowest group world wide as per: List of countries by traffic-related death rate - Wikipedia

 

[RedRobin]

Yes, and there are of course the Facebook Secret Groups which are ‘moderated’ by definition I suppose. For obvious reasons, I expect none of yours you reference are Secret though the Dragons and Damsels one sounds like it might be .

.... My 'UK Dragonflies & Damselflies' FB Group is Public :

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[sphexx]

.... My 'UK Dragonflies & Damselflies' FB Group is Public :

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

You do protest too much! Only pulling your leg Robin!

Sometimes these titles can be misleading. Years ago I subscribed to a UseNet Group called “Wolves” about exactly that, and mostly about wolves in captivity. I subscribed to another group called ”Hybrid Wolves“ which was about wolf x dog crosses kept as pets and it was almost entirely porno photos — you can see that a play on words may have been in action there but why they didn’t set up their own group I don’t know, I don’t think there was anything illegal there .

 

[Cockney]

I'm not a wildlife photographer so please excuse the stupid question.

What would be so wrong with attracting a bird with mealworms? (I know you didn't)

 

[RedRobin]

I'm not a wildlife photographer so please excuse the stupid question.

What would be so wrong with attracting a bird with mealworms? (I know you didn't)

.... I am primarily a wildlife photographer (Flickr link in my signature below) and personally I see nothing wrong with attracting a bird with mealworms. It is a food which isn't potentially harmful like bread can be and anyway wild birds will not come close enough to eat unless they feel safe enough. If this then gives me the opportunity to photograph them I consider it a fair reward and a win-win situation.

In my wildlife garden (very very rough and extremely low maintenance) I grow teasel plants and also independently have shop bought nyger (teasel) seeds in a feeder. The Goldfinches find this a very valuable food resource in winter and introduce their fledglings to feed in my garden. I could make quite a long list of other bird species which visit me for the same reasons - Food. Several species also nest in my wildlife garden and I am both very pleased and very proud of this.

MY WILDLIFE GARDEN

Visitors & Residents including in my 'BackYard'

www.flickr.com

 

[myotis]

I'm not a wildlife photographer so please excuse the stupid question.

What would be so wrong with attracting a bird with mealworms? (I know you didn't)

There are some risks with baiting birds for photography, how serious these risks are depends on circumstances and some people have very strong views about it.

Short term baiting might attract birds into the open (better light for photographs) and make them at greater risk to predators. It might also encourage the birds to spend longer in the open and be less alert to predators. It may attract several individuals from the same species into the same space and encourage territorial or other aggressive behaviour. The energy lost during these types of dispute could, in bad weather, result in the death of bird. To counter this, the availability of food could also be valuable in keeping birds alive

Regular baiting can change the behaviour of individual birds and make them dependent on the food being provided, and spend less time defending their feeding territory, with possible serious consequences for individual birds.

There are other possible risks, but overall the risks are similar to putting food out on a bird table, and then stopping when you go off on holiday for three weeks. And sparrowhawks quickly learn that bird tables can provide a ready supply of small birds. The difference is that the bird table is for the benefit of the birds, and baiting is for the benefit of the photographer. But also good bird photographs can have value for bird conservation marketing, and some birds are almost impossible to photograph without some kind of baiting.

Baiting rare birds is seen as more serious offence, as it might have a more serious consequence for a small population of birds.

Personally, I don't have a big issue with responsible baiting but I think you need to understand the ecology and behaviour of the species you want to photograph to assess what is and isn't responsible. I'm not keen on tethering live goats to attract tigers (and its never worked for me in Somerset), or damaging trees to hide bait which will attract birds or mammals but not be seen by the camera, but scattering a few mealworms, in a spot a bird is coming to anyway, to encourage it into the "right" but still safe spot, seems fairly harmless to me.

 

[Cockney]

There are some risks with baiting birds for photography, how serious these risks are depends on circumstances and some people have very strong views about it.

Short term baiting might attract birds into the open (better light for photographs) and make them at greater risk to predators. It might also encourage the birds to spend longer in the open and be less alert to predators. It may attract several individuals from the same species into the same space and encourage territorial or other aggressive behaviour. The energy lost during these types of dispute could, in bad weather, result in the death of bird. To counter this, the availability of food could also be valuable in keeping birds alive

Regular baiting can change the behaviour of individual birds and make them dependent on the food being provided, and spend less time defending their feeding territory, with possible serious consequences for individual birds.

There are other possible risks, but overall the risks are similar to putting food out on a bird table, and then stopping when you go off on holiday for three weeks. And sparrowhawks quickly learn that bird tables can provide a ready supply of small birds. The difference is that the bird table is for the benefit of the birds, and baiting is for the benefit of the photographer. But also good bird photographs can have value for bird conservation marketing, and some birds are almost impossible to photograph without some kind of baiting.

Baiting rare birds is seen as more serious offence, as it might have a more serious consequence for a small population of birds.

Personally, I don't have a big issue with responsible baiting but I think you need to understand the ecology and behaviour of the species you want to photograph to assess what is and isn't responsible. I'm not keen on tethering live goats to attract tigers (and its never worked for me in Somerset), or damaging trees to hide bait which will attract birds or mammals but not be seen by the camera, but scattering a few mealworms, in a spot a bird is coming to anyway, to encourage it into the "right" but still safe spot, seems fairly harmless to me.

Thanks for the interesting and comprehensive response.

 

[sphexx]

There are some risks with baiting birds for photography, how serious these risks are depends on circumstances and some people have very strong views about it.

Short term baiting might attract birds into the open (better light for photographs) and make them at greater risk to predators. It might also encourage the birds to spend longer in the open and be less alert to predators. It may attract several individuals from the same species into the same space and encourage territorial or other aggressive behaviour. The energy lost during these types of dispute could, in bad weather, result in the death of bird. To counter this, the availability of food could also be valuable in keeping birds alive

Regular baiting can change the behaviour of individual birds and make them dependent on the food being provided, and spend less time defending their feeding territory, with possible serious consequences for individual birds.

There are other possible risks, but overall the risks are similar to putting food out on a bird table, and then stopping when you go off on holiday for three weeks. And sparrowhawks quickly learn that bird tables can provide a ready supply of small birds. The difference is that the bird table is for the benefit of the birds, and baiting is for the benefit of the photographer. But also good bird photographs can have value for bird conservation marketing, and some birds are almost impossible to photograph without some kind of baiting.

Baiting rare birds is seen as more serious offence, as it might have a more serious consequence for a small population of birds.

Personally, I don't have a big issue with responsible baiting but I think you need to understand the ecology and behaviour of the species you want to photograph to assess what is and isn't responsible. I'm not keen on tethering live goats to attract tigers (and its never worked for me in Somerset), or damaging trees to hide bait which will attract birds or mammals but not be seen by the camera, but scattering a few mealworms, in a spot a bird is coming to anyway, to encourage it into the "right" but still safe spot, seems fairly harmless to me.

I think you’ve covered most but I think food concentrated in a small area (bird table or feeder) may encourage the spread of diseases and possibly (rather topically in a pandemic ) between species . I have no evidence this happens but it seems likely, there may be some. This wouldn’t apply to isolated baiting though.