Beginner Kingfisher behaviour

JackBell

JackBell

Messages
585
Edit My Images
Yes
Photographing some Kingfishers at my local river when I saw this little chap feeding it's young. He would sit on a branch for a couple of minutes checking around the nest site before entering with the fish (normal I would have thought) then, after leaving the nest he would fly at the water at a shallow angle and 'bounce' into it a few times before flying off. Anyone know about this behaviour or seen it themselves?

tp6.jpg
 
He's washing off the 'muck' and smell from his visit to the nest ... totally normal behaviour. :)
 
Common Kingfishers are a Schedule 1 species. A license is required to photograph at or around the nest.
 
Darth M said:
Common Kingfishers are a Schedule 1 species. A license is required to photograph at or around the nest.
Click to expand...

At this time the young are often away from the nest but still being fed by the parents, you don't have to be near the nest
to see them
 
Darth M said:
Common Kingfishers are a Schedule 1 species. A license is required to photograph at or around the nest.
Click to expand...
The nest is about 3 yards from a public footpath (where I took some images) I assure you the birds were not being harassed in any way. Talking with other people whilst I was there I came to the conclusion the vast majority of them weren't even aware of their presence. Myself and one other photographer have been the only 'birders' there in the last couple of months.
Also the nest is inaccessible to people being in a very steep section of the riverbank.
 
Last edited:
The welfare of the birds was paramount obviously, and as you weren't there you are assuming, incorrectly, it wasn't. As for breaking the law I'm consoled by the words 'Laws are for the guidance of wise men,and the obedience of fools'

Goodbye
 
Darth M said:
So the welfare of the birds and breaking the law doesn't matter as long as you get some pictures.
Click to expand...

Out of interest, how far would you go to prevent any disturbance ... call for the footpath to be closed?
 
Well the footpath was there long before the birds nested there as far as I know, as it was late June/July it was possibly their second brood? I would have thought they were comfortable with their nest site. The photo above is a crop from a 600mm (equivalent) lens,so I don't think intrusive. I have been to the site maybe on 5/6 occasions over a two month period for around 30 mins at a time so again hardly intrusive. Others may think otherwise.
 
JackBell said:
Well the footpath was there long before the birds nested there as far as I know, as it was late June/July it was possibly their second brood? I would have thought they were comfortable with their nest site. The photo above is a crop from a 600mm (equivalent) lens,so I don't think intrusive. I have been to the site maybe on 5/6 occasions over a two month period for around 30 mins at a time so again hardly intrusive. Others may think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Your photographing the birds from the public footpath will be unlikely to cause any more disturbance than any other people/dogs etc using or abusing the footpath.
The birds were obviously happy in choosing the location (a process that takes some days/weeks) and are unlikely to not have noticed the possibility of a human presence.
Moving off the footpath toward the nest site would, of course, change the scenario completely.
 
Darth M said:
So the welfare of the birds and breaking the law doesn't matter as long as you get some pictures.
Click to expand...

Please can you clarify how this is breaking the law or bad for the welfare of the birds in this specific situation? I'm new to this and had a look at the schedule 1 application form which talks about intentional disturbance. Photographing from a footpath doesn't seem, on the face of it, to meet this requirement. Happy to be educated.
 
Darth M said:
Common Kingfishers are a Schedule 1 species. A license is required to photograph at or around the nest.
Click to expand...

Did you bother to check if the OP had such a licence before posting this drivel.

Red kite are also protected under schedule 1. They fly above my house daily. Should I move?
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Did you bother to check if the OP had such a licence before posting this drivel.
Click to expand...

To be fair the thread title does say 'Beginner: Kingfisher Behaviour' then goes on to mention photographing at the nest. I would also assume a person with a shecule 1 licence for kingfishers would not be asking for advice on kngfisher behaviour on talk photography considering you need to know the species behaviour well to be granted a licence.

ecoleman said:
Red kite are also protected under schedule 1. They fly above my house daily. Should I move?
Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between a schedule 1 flying over a house (i.e. Not at a nest!) and a photographer intentionally standing on a footpath photographing a schedule 1 species near a nest for a period of time. Walking along the footpath not knowing where the nest is located is likely to be seen as intentionally disturbing whilst visiting for photography purposes is likely to be seen as intentional.

Schedule 1 isn't something that many are aware of or fully understand, and it's good for it to be raised on TP. Schedule 1 protection says 'Intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird'. It's interesting to note there isn't a definition of what is 'intentional or reckless disturbance, though I fully expect it's down to the individual to prove they weren't causing disturbance. If you look at what is required to gain a schedule 1 it's likely to need similar experience/qualifications to prove you weren't causing disturbance. Personally it's something I stay away from because of the schedule 1 requirements.

The whole act can be read here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69
 
rob-nikon said:
To be fair the thread title does say 'Beginner: Kingfisher Behaviour' then goes on to mention photographing at the nest. I would also assume a person with a shecule 1 licence for kingfishers would not be asking for advice on kngfisher behaviour on talk photography considering you need to know the species behaviour well to be granted a licence.



I think there is a difference between a schedule 1 flying over a house (i.e. Not at a nest!) and a photographer intentionally standing on a footpath photographing a schedule 1 species near a nest for a period of time. Walking along the footpath not knowing where the nest is located is likely to be seen as intentionally disturbing whilst visiting for photography purposes is likely to be seen as intentional.

Schedule 1 isn't something that many are aware of or fully understand, and it's good for it to be raised on TP. Schedule 1 protection says 'Intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird'. It's interesting to note there isn't a definition of what is 'intentional or reckless disturbance, though I fully expect it's down to the individual to prove they weren't causing disturbance. If you look at what is required to gain a schedule 1 it's likely to need similar experience/qualifications to prove you weren't causing disturbance. Personally it's something I stay away from because of the schedule 1 requirements.

The whole act can be read here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69
Click to expand...


Urm yes, I was being sarcastic.
 
rob-nikon said:
To be fair the thread title does say 'Beginner: Kingfisher Behaviour' then goes on to mention photographing at the nest. I would also assume a person with a shecule 1 licence for kingfishers would not be asking for advice on kngfisher behaviour on talk photography considering you need to know the species behaviour well to be granted a licence.



I think there is a difference between a schedule 1 flying over a house (i.e. Not at a nest!) and a photographer intentionally standing on a footpath photographing a schedule 1 species near a nest for a period of time. Walking along the footpath not knowing where the nest is located is likely to be seen as intentionally disturbing whilst visiting for photography purposes is likely to be seen as intentional.

Schedule 1 isn't something that many are aware of or fully understand, and it's good for it to be raised on TP. Schedule 1 protection says 'Intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird'. It's interesting to note there isn't a definition of what is 'intentional or reckless disturbance, though I fully expect it's down to the individual to prove they weren't causing disturbance. If you look at what is required to gain a schedule 1 it's likely to need similar experience/qualifications to prove you weren't causing disturbance. Personally it's something I stay away from because of the schedule 1 requirements.

The whole act can be read here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69
Click to expand...

Thank you some good information there. I would never intentionally disturb a bird feeding it's young or building a nest or any other situation where it could feel threatened, if you knew how much my wife and I spend on bird food on a yearly basis you would realise they are important to us :) You make it sound as if I was very close to the nest when you say ' photographing at the nest' but I can honestly say due to where the parents were perching and the best angle for a photo I was never closer than 30 yards from the nest site at any time. Of course even this maybe classed as too close, so I will refrain from taking images of birds in the wild in future.
 
JackBell said:
Thank you some good information there. I would never intentionally disturb a bird feeding it's young or building a nest or any other situation where it could feel threatened, if you knew how much my wife and I spend on bird food on a yearly basis you would realise they are important to us :) You make it sound as if I was very close to the nest when you say ' photographing at the nest' but I can honestly say due to where the parents were perching and the best angle for a photo I was never closer than 30 yards from the nest site at any time. Of course even this maybe classed as too close, so I will refrain from taking images of birds in the wild in future.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying your actions were intentional but you do have to be aware of schedule 1 limitations. Unfortunately it's not well defined what is too close or what is intentional or reckless disturbance. The law doesn't state what is too close, whether that's 10m, 30m, 50m or 100m+ is debatable. It sounds like you love birds and wouldn't intentially cause them harm.

Please don't let it put you off taking birds in the wild, it may just be a case of a bit of reading up on schedule 1, staying within it limitations and move a few hundred metres down stream near a well used perch that's away from the nest but often used for fishing.
 
Last edited:
This is probably one of the simple straight to the point guides Ive read.

https://www.naturettl.com/understanding-schedule-1-licenses-for-bird-photography/

The difficulty is saying whether you would or would not cause disturbance. What is disturb is debatable too. It could be argued if an animal is just looking at you could be defined as disturbance. Each persons view on what is too close, what is disturbance (intentional or reckless) will differ greatly person to person. As we can see on here views differ greatly. There seems to be a lot of grey with schedule 1 so it's probably best to air on the side of caution.

If you know the location of a schedule 1 species nest it's probably best to stay away from the nest. The questions you have to ask yourself are do you have to be the nest to get the images? Is there another way? It's still possible to get images away from the nest location.

gramps said:
No need, you've done nothing wrong. :)
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone has said the OP has done anything wrong, but have just highlighted the potential to risk infringing schedule 1 if photographing at a nest. Anytime you are photographing close to a schedule 1 nest during the breeding season you risk infringing schedule 1, and that could result in £5000 fines or 6 months in prison. With this being the talk nature section and all of us being nature lovers it's good to talk about issues like this. I would very much doubt any of us would intentionally cause harm to any wildlife, but we may not all be aware of laws like schedule 1 so it's always good to talk openly and discuss this. Sometimes as wildlife photographers I feel we can be far too guarded and do not openly discuss the wildlife subjects/issues.
 
rob-nikon said:
I don't think anyone has said the OP has done anything wrong, but have just highlighted the potential to risk infringing schedule 1 if photographing at a nest.
Click to expand...

Darth M said:
So the welfare of the birds and breaking the law doesn't matter as long as you get some pictures.
Click to expand...

It's a footpath, the only way to stop any possible disturbance is to close the footpath, I don't believe taking photos at 30 metres (as O/P says he did) from a public footpath would ever get a conviction.
 
Last edited:
newbie1 said:
Please can you clarify how this is breaking the law or bad for the welfare of the birds in this specific situation? I'm new to this and had a look at the schedule 1 application form which talks about intentional disturbance. Photographing from a footpath doesn't seem, on the face of it, to meet this requirement. Happy to be educated.
Click to expand...


Irrespective of the law we as bird photographers have a moral obligation to put the welfare of the birds first. One good reason is that if you can see the bird she can see you. In her habitat there may be people walking past and she would wait until it is clear then fly in. now even one photographer sets up for a while , that to the bird is a permanent intrusion and cause her to be agitated and not fly in, to me that would be intentional disturbance. I have been informed that to long an intrusion and some birds will fly off and not return leaving whatever is in the nest (woodpeckers for instance). Very bad for bird welfare.
I was not aware of bird scheduling but I would like to thank Darth M for making me aware of. I will be doing a bit of reading up.(y)
Also Thanks Rob for expanding on the subject, I agree It would be good for TP to put some info up on the subject.

JackBell as Roger says you have done nothing wrong at all, you asked for help and got a lot more valuable info that you can use for the birds welfare. So get clued up get out there and enjoy this fascinating hobby.(y)

This thread has made me think and I will be doing more reading up on individual birds before go out to photograph them in future.
 
charlychuckchuck said:
It would be good for TP to put some info up on the subject.
Click to expand...

The problem is the limited information available is very general and does not give a full black and white answer. It's not worth TP to give those answers due to the potential risk it would open them up to. Distances and disturbance will most likely differ depending on species and location, what would be ok in one location/species may not suit another.

gramps said:
It's a footpath, the only way to stop any possible disturbance is to close the footpath, I don't believe taking photos at 30 metres (as O/P says he did) from a public footpath would ever get a conviction.
Click to expand...
I agree 30m from a public footpath is probably in likely to result in a conviction (though I'm not a qualified wildlife officer so may opinion on distances it probably worth as much as a chocolate teapot!) but there is still potential to fall foul of schedule 1. It seems 3 yards in post 8 was likely just to be a typo The good thing this debate seems to have highlighted schedule 1 to others that may not have been aware, so all well that end well
 
Last edited:
Purely as a matter of interest, the photos in the link beneath were taken from probably about the same distance 30 metres (or slightly less) from a Kingfisher nest at Slimbridge. I've taken photos from there as have hundreds of others whilst the Kingfishers are nesting and there has never been any indication that the hide would be closed down or access to it restricted at breeding time.
There was, rightly, a decision to lock the windows closed this year to prevent disturbance from dozens of photographers machine-gunning their cameras at birds sitting on branches ( :banghead: ) but after successfully raising the first brood and a second brood hatching the windows are again open to take photos,

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...al-thread-i-hope.608346/page-108#post-7897852
 
I'm glad this thread has highlighted Schedule 1, I wasn't aware of such a thing and will certainly look into this.
 
keef32 said:
I'm glad this thread has highlighted Schedule 1, I wasn't aware of such a thing and will certainly look into this.
Click to expand...

Yes me too, whilst the controversy I seem to have caused put me off a bit I think I may have been a tad hasty in saying I would stop altogether. A bit more research by me may be better for the bird's welfare and my photography.
 
keef32 said:
I'm glad this thread has highlighted Schedule 1, I wasn't aware of such a thing and will certainly look into this.
Click to expand...

It also highlights how ridiculously useless these schedules are.

I'm not a birder and have never heard of them as, I suspect, have the vast majority of the public.
I walk a lot and if I come across a kingfisher, I'm going to whip out the camera and try and get off a few shots, as would most people.

Sorry but people simply don't think, I'll go for a walk today, I wonder what creatures I may encounter so that I can check if there are any laws pertaining to them just incase I stumble across one and inadvertently break the law.

The ONLY people that are aware of these laws are the government, the RSPB and avid birders.
 
An interesting 'definition' of disturbance from the Rare Bird Alert site:-
Disturbance
  • The best way to understand disturbance, whether intentional or reckless (ie pursuing a course of action while consciously disregarding the fact that the action gives rise to a substantial and unjustifiable risk), is to think that it includes any action that causes a nesting Schedule 1 bird to behave differently to how it would behave if the photographer wasn’t there.
  • This includes getting too close and flushing, alarming, or causing a nesting bird listed on Schedule 1 to stop what it was doing; and/or using a recording/tape lure that causes a nesting bird listed on Schedule 1 to react in any way at all whether that behaviour is a ‘normal’ response to hearing the call or not.
  • It is not an excuse for a person to claim that they thought that no nesting activity was taking place.
In basic terms, when it comes to Schedule 1 birds, if a photographer does anything that causes a nesting adult or their young to change behaviour they are breaking the law. Additionally irresponsible disturbance may put a bird at risk, cause a nest to fail, or allow eggs or dependent young to be predated or harmed.
Click to expand...

http://www.rarebirdalert.co.uk/v2/Content/BAWC_Photographing_Schedule_1_birds.aspx?s_id=14115752
 
I aplied for a scedule one a couple of years ago ,the site was on private land and the licence is only site specific,i had all the reqirements they needed.
I got a reply asking what my intentions were i informed them what i intended doing ,and as Gramps as quoted above they came back to me saying you dont need one ,,,end off .
 
ecoleman said:
It also highlights how ridiculously useless these schedules are.

I'm not a birder and have never heard of them as, I suspect, have the vast majority of the public.
I walk a lot and if I come across a kingfisher, I'm going to whip out the camera and try and get off a few shots, as would most people.

Sorry but people simply don't think, I'll go for a walk today, I wonder what creatures I may encounter so that I can check if there are any laws pertaining to them just incase I stumble across one and inadvertently break the law.

The ONLY people that are aware of these laws are the government, the RSPB and avid birders.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say they are useless at all.
 
gramps said:
An interesting 'definition' of disturbance from the Rare Bird Alert site:-


http://www.rarebirdalert.co.uk/v2/Content/BAWC_Photographing_Schedule_1_birds.aspx?s_id=14115752
Click to expand...


SUPER POST ROGER :clap:

Forgetting law for a moment Surely the interest of the birds or any wild creature should be put first for whatever hobbies are being pursued.
Back to law. A law is a law(not a guidance;)) and in the event of a prosecution, ignorance of is no defence :)

Quote:The ONLY people that are aware of these laws are the government, the RSPB and avid birders. AND EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD
 
charlychuckchuck said:
Forgetting law for a moment Surely the interest of the birds or any wild creature should be put first for whatever hobbies are being pursued.
Click to expand...

Absolutely Charles, I couldn't agree with you more.
What I would say, (and this would not get the agreement of all bird watchers), is that photography in itself does not go against the welfare of birds.
That having been said, the action by some of rattling off 100's or even 1000's of shots in a short period of time of a bird sitting almost motionless on a twig/reed could certainly act against the welfare of a nesting bird (apart from the stupidity of the action itself!).

The source of the quote above, mentioned things like removing eggs or chicks from the nests for photography ... I doubt any sane photographer would argue against that being a disturbance. Similarly the use of bird-call recordings, throwing stones into water etc to attract a certain action or pose from a bird would be a disturbance and the sad fact is that there are those photographers out there who would do these things.
I remember reading recently of a small group of photographers putting expanding foam into dead fish to make them float on the water so that they could get photos of birds of prey diving to catch them, clearly they gave no thought to the welfare of the birds and it is that sort of behaviour that should rightly be condemned by all, not the photographer that gets a couple of shots of a Kingfisher from the footpath. :)
 
Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way, shape or form saying that the welfare of our wildlife should be ignored. I'm just saying that these laws are pretty pointless when the majority of the population are completely unaware of them.

It's all very well and good to say that ignorance is no defence, but at the same time you can not expect the average citizen to know each and every law of the country.
 
ecoleman said:
I'm just saying that these laws are pretty pointless when the majority of the population are completely unaware of them.
Click to expand...

Perfectly valid point ... I wonder how much more disturbance, (way above anything the O/P could have caused), would result from a young family walking along the footpath and excitedly discovering the active bird, (perhaps with a fish in its mouth and/or plopping in/out of the water), without having any idea of the possible damage that their excitement might cause..
 
ecoleman said:
It's all very well and good to say that ignorance is no defence, but at the same time you can not expect the average citizen to know each and every law of the country.
Click to expand...

But similarly if you are going to be going out to do something then you should be aware of the law surrounding said thing?

You wouldn't have the same ignorance going abroad to laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top