"You have to break the rules to get the best shot"

Surely if the OP was on a footpath frequented by dog walkers there is more chance of disturbance via dog barks and such than someone sitting/standing still
 
  • Like
Reactions: den
PaulButler said:
Pete, genuine question, are there any published guidelines as such for this?
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, there any formal guidelines and the law doesn't expand on the meaning of 'near'. The issue is that it doesn't depend just on the species, but the temperament of individual birds and their circumstance. The usual example is avocets that nest in front of public hides, as long as you follow usual hide etiquette there's no issue, but normally they'd be disturbed even at much greater distance.

Ultimately, part of good field-craft is about taking the time to learn your subject so you can read its body-language and tell when when your presence risks become a disturbance and being able to back-off before it does. The barn own may or may not have been disturbed by your presence on a footpath, and it's in a better position to tell you than people on an internet forum.
 
Cg_Girl said:
Surely if the OP was on a footpath frequented by dog walkers there is more chance of disturbance via dog barks and such than someone sitting/standing still
Click to expand...
One issue is "different behaviour". If countless dogs bark every day, the owl will have either moved on before becoming attached to the territory, or have grown use to them and understands they're not a threat. If you're doing some unusual or novel, then that's not the case. Secondly, birds and animals are quite able to tell when something is ignoring them and when it's watching them. The latter is the behaviour of predators.

Often you'll be able to drive quite close past a perched barn owl, buzzard or red kite and it'll sit there nonchalantly. But the moment you stop the car, they'll have flown off before you can wind down the window. It's why it's good stalking technique, not to move in a straight line towards your subject but to move in a zig-zag. It reassures the subject you're doing your own thing and not paying it overdue attention.
 
RacingSnake said:
Ok, I'll issue an apology to those that think my sitting on the path 100m from the site is causing a disturbance, I have no way of identifying whether it did or didn't. :|

I'll be honest though, I didn't really expect my (what I thought was responsible viewing) would end up in me being called a prat, negligent and reckless. :|
Click to expand...
I personally don't think you have done anything wrong. Ignore the jibes, it's not obvious either of you have disturbed the bird. The other guy may have by going closer but that's not certain. You can get pretty close to some species without causing any concern at all.
 
big soft moose said:
however in general terms 100m is too close to a schedule 1 nest site particularly without a hide etc
Click to expand...

Really? How do you come to that conclusion or is that just your made up opinion?
 
big soft moose said:
the acid test is has the bird been disturbed by your actions - if it wasnt then probably you werent either negligent or reckless, (unlike mr dim wt who was definitely reckless) , however in general terms 100m is too close to a schedule 1 nest site particularly without a hide etc
Click to expand...
Having photographed schedule 1 birds in the past ,and still do armed with a 300mm f4 and a 400mm 5.6 i have no choice but to get as close as i can to my subjects ,as this is about the barn owl i will only wobble on about that bird,in my opinion their are photographers that know the subject they are photographing and study the birds behaviour ,know the subject etc,then there are the trophy hunters that just want the wow factor shot at any cost and lets face it if they spend £20 grand on equipment and they have to prove there investment was worth it (and there are some photographers that also spend the same but know there subjects) ,in my opinion if you know the barn owls flight path when going back to the nest with food then you stay well clear of it ,were the bird hunts for food is the place to be,they are very predictable to the point were they are out at the same time every day,if conditions are in favour ,you stand in your spot and sit it out ,they come to you ,i have had barn owls fly over my head many times as if i were not even there ,then come back the same way and carry on hunting ,i had a simalar situation a few years ago like Gavin were i was at a good spot for barn owls were some so called wildlife photographer did the excact same thing as Gavin witnessed ,unlike Gavin (who was polite about the situation) i was not and i told him he was in the flight path back to the nest,lets say he did not stay around,and there are a couple of members on here who know what i did , that one man could have been the difference between sucess and failure of that nest site......back to your comment Pete about 300m being in general terms to close to a schedule 1 nest site is a tad out (plenty of info on the internet on photographing schedule 1 birds),its all about knowing were you should be and were you shouldnt be because at the end of the day the welfare of the subject is far more important than getting the so called perfect shot,.....so going back on Gavin possibly causing disturbance and recklesness at around 300m is twaddle ,if he is not in anyway stopping that barn owl from going back to the nest with food then i would say even at 300m away he is causing no issues at all....
 
den said:
so going back on Gavin possibly causing disturbance and recklesness at around 300m is twaddle ,if he is not in anyway stopping that barn owl from going back to the nest with food then i would say even at 300m away he is causing no issues at all....
Click to expand...

Den - I have no doubt you are right about 300 metres, however the OP was talking about being only 94 metres away , which is what i was saying was too close. It is of course hard to assess whether The OPs behaviour caused disturbance given that the actions of mr halfwit defintely did , but as Paul said the issue is difference from the norm - and IMO standing for a long period of time within 100m of a nest with no form of concealment is a behaviour that is sufficiently different from the norm to be a potential cause of disturbance (it being the behaviour of a predator etc) and if someone did so on our land i would definitely move them on.
 
Let me chuck this into the mix. This bird hangs out in a barn,on a working farm. The farmer and myself have need to go into the barn on a weekly basis, he works or drives around the barn daily.

The owl is not disturbed if you do not go into the barn, if you do, it flies out and comes back after a short while. Owls have used barns as long as barns have been around,barns are working buildings. I very much doubt if Gavin sitting a good distance away behind a bloody fence will upset the bird one iota. Some berk getting closer and closer and doing so regularly could well do so.

Taken Jan 11th, owl kept on sleeping, check the shutter speed, taken through a window into the barn. The owl is still hanging out in the exact same spot,to press......just wish it would get a mate.


Barn Owl Jan 1 by www.wildlifenorthwest.co.uk, on Flickr
 
A lot of it Pete is down to ignorance,with some so called wildlife photographers not having a clue about the subject they are photographing,hence not knowing (and i dont mean Gavin here) when they are disturbing the bird ,some just dont have a clue about the birds behaviour especially in breeding season,i take your point regarding standing for long periods of time with no concealment within 100m but then the photographer as to use his/her judgement as to whethere they are likely to disturb the bird from its normal behaviour , for me personaly i believe i would not get the shots i do if i was causing any issues with the birds i photograph,and i do get close (with hides) and those that know me and how i work know i put the birds first ,unfortunatley some dont ,and that is something i have witnessed many times ,but thts another matter
 
fracster said:
Let me chuck this into the mix. This bird hangs out in a barn,on a working farm. The farmer and myself have need to go into the barn on a weekly basis, he works or drives around the barn daily.

The owl is not disturbed if you do not go into the barn, if you do, it flies out and comes back after a short while. Owls have used barns as long as barns have been around,barns are working buildings. I very much doubt if Gavin sitting a good distance away behind a bloody fence will upset the bird one iota. Some berk getting closer and closer and doing so regularly could well do so.

Taken Jan 11th, owl kept on sleeping, check the shutter speed, taken through a window into the barn. The owl is still hanging out in the exact same spot,to press......just wish it would get a mate.


Barn Owl Jan 1 by www.wildlifenorthwest.co.uk, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Totaly different situation there Ade,lets say your were constantly driving back and forth across the barn in the birds return flight path to feed the young ,would you continue or make a judgent call and hang back ,change your route to allow the bird a stress free flight to the nest ,i would like to think with your knowledge you would stop and think ,but then someone without such knowledge could easily carry on regardless and possibly cause the bird problems ....
 
No one has mentioned any form of concealment - although I wasn't wearing camo just 'all black'.
I sit (or sat) under a small tree on the side of the path, and the site is located behind a couple of other trees... the screenshot is a bit misleading as there are no leaves on the trees at the moment, so the view from the path is relatively unobstructed

View attachment 33601
 
den said:
Totaly different situation there Ade,lets say your were constantly driving back and forth across the barn in the birds return flight path to feed the young ,would you continue or make a judgent call and hang back ,change your route to allow the bird a stress free flight to the nest ,i would like to think with your knowledge you would stop and think ,but then someone without such knowledge could easily carry on regardless and possibly cause the bird problems ....
Click to expand...
If the bird gets a mate, then the barn will be emptied of what we need and they will be left in peace. Emptying the barn will be a right PITA, but we spoke about it and agreed that we will do just that.

No, I would not stand directly in its flight path, there is no need really. I have spent a few evenings watching the bird hunting and am getting an idea of its flight path, now I just need to find somewhere to photograph the bird whilst it is hunting, the longer evenings are helping.

Bottom line,in my opinion, no shot is worth the subject being distressed.
 
This Schedule 1 bird thing is not a one rule suits all kind of thing though IMO, and i do find the many interpretations very confusing

Take the 2 breeding pairs of Peregrine Falcons in my local area (one pair in Sheffield, the other in Derby), both have webcams set up on them, both are fairly heavily publicised with no attempt to disguise/conceal their location, both within fairly heavily populated City/Town centres, these birds do not seem phased by the presence of people watching/photographing them on a regular basis

They have also both been there for several years, and continue to return each and every year

I could walk right up and stand directly below the ones in Sheffield, and many people regularly do as it on the side of a Church which is used as a lecture theatre by the Sheffield University, so is continuously surrounded by noisy students and passing shoppers

These birds obviously have a mind of their own, and chose the nest/breed in these locations, obviously knowing full well there is human presence near by, be it 100 yards above a busy street, or 100 meters from a public footpath
 
The W said:
One issue is "different behaviour". If countless dogs bark every day, the owl will have either moved on before becoming attached to the territory, or have grown use to them and understands they're not a threat. If you're doing some unusual or novel, then that's not the case. Secondly, birds and animals are quite able to tell when something is ignoring them and when it's watching them. The latter is the behaviour of predators.

Often you'll be able to drive quite close past a perched barn owl, buzzard or red kite and it'll sit there nonchalantly. But the moment you stop the car, they'll have flown off before you can wind down the window. It's why it's good stalking technique, not to move in a straight line towards your subject but to move in a zig-zag. It reassures the subject you're doing your own thing and not paying it overdue attention.
Click to expand...
Thanks for responding Paul. Just to be clear I haven't photographed a barn owl or any owl yet. I'm just trying to gather knowledge before trying it out sometime :) I would never want to cause distress to any animal, intentionally or unintentionally.
 
I saw a lot of things like this in 23 years of birding. The birds welfare should always come first. However, on saying that, many owl breeding boxes, are used simply for roosting and shelter, and not for breeding. The sensible thing is to air on the side of caution.
I would have a tendency to report him if the box was within a reserve, or on private land.
 
There is a lot of guess work here, both sensible, and some a little dubious! :D

I would go out of my way NOT to cause any disturbance etc etc, and believe that this hasn't happened(disturbance from me, I mean!!), I think 100m, or 300ft is a good distance, and infact I have found a couple of references to "minimum distance", one of which was issued by the scottish forestry commission recommending that any forestry work is carried out a minimum of 100-250m away from known Barn owl sites, so considerably more disruptive than me on a footpath under a tree :D

Similarly, and perhaps quite surprising for me, is that the Barn Owl trust state:
"Where Barn Owls are nesting in an elevated tree cavity, a licence would not be required for quietly picking up owl pellets around the base of the tree. The quiet use of the footpath that has always passed beside it would not require a licence, nor would the farmer doing his annual hay cut within a few metres of it. However, anyone climbing the tree, or leaning a ladder against it, would need a licence."
and also:
"Adult Barn Owls are effectively only protected against disturbance while they are in or near a nest containing eggs or young. ‘Near’ is open to interpretation, but normally means within the same building or just outside, and within 30 m in the case of a tree nest. However, the extent of potential disturbance depends largely on the extent of deviation from the norm; a major building project involving large numbers of workmen, vehicles and machinery generating a great deal of noise 100 m from a previously isolated, quiet nest site might potentially be disturbing, whereas a similar development the same distance from a Barn Owl nest in a busy farm complex might not be."

This seems a bit more sensible to me, 30m, sounds like a more sensible 'short' distance for a quiet location within a country park/reserve - and noise (from me anyway) is not an issue!


All being said, the resultant shows at the box were pretty crap anyway,. so the hunting field will still be a better opportunity for me - and will be where i focus future efforts.
 
Last edited:
Breeding season is key here to the disturbance and shedule 1,,the law does not set a minimum distance that photographers,or anyone else must keep from a nest of a schedule 1 bird,so in theory at 10m away from a nest you may not be causing a disturbance from there normal behaviour but at 100m you could be sat right next to were the bird is hunting/fishing and thus causing a disturbance from its natural behaviour...
 
rpsmith79 said:
This Schedule 1 bird thing is not a one rule suits all kind of thing though IMO, and i do find the many interpretations very confusing

Take the 2 breeding pairs of Peregrine Falcons in my local area (one pair in Sheffield, the other in Derby), both have webcams set up on them, both are fairly heavily publicised with no attempt to disguise/conceal their location, both within fairly heavily populated City/Town centres, these birds do not seem phased by the presence of people watching/photographing them on a regular basis

They have also both been there for several years, and continue to return each and every year

I could walk right up and stand directly below the ones in Sheffield, and many people regularly do as it on the side of a Church which is used as a lecture theatre by the Sheffield University, so is continuously surrounded by noisy students and passing shoppers

These birds obviously have a mind of their own, and chose the nest/breed in these locations, obviously knowing full well there is human presence near by, be it 100 yards above a busy street, or 100 meters from a public footpath
Click to expand...
Very good point Paul, the falcons I photograph annually are not bothered at all about people being in the area, as long as they are not too close of course.Other peregrine nests are the polar opposite, they are distressed if you get within 200 yards of them, so I just concentrate on the one site for photographic purposes and leave the others alone,other than to check that all is well through a spotting scope.
 
There's a reason pros can wait days for subjects to come along. The best way to get close to subjects is to know them and how they behave and adapt to them. Getting close to a subject to get the best pictures can be a case of getting into position when the subject is not there and waiting. It can take hours, a day or even several days. If you don't have the time for that either don't take the pictures, stay well back and use a longer lens or find a more tolerant species.
 
photogav said:
There's a reason pros can wait days for subjects to come along. The best way to get close to subjects is to know them and how they behave and adapt to them. Getting close to a subject to get the best pictures can be a case of getting into position when the subject is not there and waiting. It can take hours, a day or even several days. If you don't have the time for that either don't take the pictures, stay well back and use a longer lens or find a more tolerant species.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more........unfortunately their are some that think because they own a longer lens they ultimately become wildlife photographers and behave like morons in the field
 
The W said:
It's why it's good stalking technique, not to move in a straight line towards your subject but to move in a zig-zag. It reassures the subject you're doing your own thing and not paying it overdue attention.
Click to expand...
Much the same as dancing over to a bir ... lady in a club rather than just charging at her ;)
 
i wouldnt be bothered at all myself. i would have just shaken my head and felt embarrassed for him. then moved along.
the first shot has real potential, just a shame the tree branches in the background intersect with the owl. great positioning with the light though!
 
Thought of this thread. Right now we have the office door open and a Sparrow hawk has taken to itself to use our grass paddock as a hunting area. Monday he took a pidgeon and sat ripping it's breasts off 20 feet from the window, today I've seen it take a mouse? and a small rabbit
 
DemiLion said:
Dog walkers are passing by. Someone sat as close as you implied (60 yards or so) and not moving would definitely be seen as a threat. You are effectively a hunter watching its prey.

Reckless behaviour is something that would cause a bird to abandon (or destroy) it's nest or young. Lurking close to a nest may well qualify.
Click to expand...

I'm reading this thread with interest and am genuinely puzzled by some of these responses. Using an established path, whether it be standing still or moving along is behaviour the birds will surely be used to. Using the path isn't approaching the nest or bird and so I find it surprising you think this constitutes a threat to the bird. How do you know? You weren't there and so I am really curious as to how you reach that conclusion? It's a genuine question for the reasons below that I guess apply to me in some ways.

I'm watching a Tawny owl in the woods behind where I live. It's a woodland area that has a badger sett I keep an eye on and is frequented by kids and presumably other locals. I walked along a path the other evening and the owl was sat on a branch around 20ft away before I even noticed it - my path led directly to the bird had I continued walking. I stopped when I saw it and didn't deliberately approach, nor did I intentionally disturb the bird. Our paths literally crossed by accident by virtue of us both using the same bit of countryside. How is my taking the camera and snapping shots of the owl any different to my walking (ignorant of its presence) or exploring the woodland anyway? If anything, my knowledge is making me more cautious of it and mindful of how I may affect the animal. That's the attitude I took from the op and so I'm wondering about all this too. I have no idea whether Tawny owls are also protected or what my responsibility is regarding it, other than being respectful and mindful. Should I stop using the wood? Should I avoid that or any other path that may just be near a roost or nest?? As others use the wood, the owl must be used to seeing people and so how would I know whether I am disturbing it or not?


Doesn't the same principle apply to someone quietly stood watching with a camera compared to someone with yapping and barking or noisy dogs?? How can you criticise the camera user who doesn't approach and yet find it acceptable that others use the path and create noise or other disturbances or even threats in the form of other animals?
 
Last edited:
The path the op was on seems to be an established foot path and my well be a public footpath.
With that in mine the op has done nothing wrong even if the path had been only 50m from the bird. The op has no control over where the bird picks to pearch

The other guy who went over the fence into what I guess was private land and went to within 10m, he is a prat.
 
wishmaster said:
Doesn't the same principle apply to someone quietly stood watching with a camera compared to someone with yapping and barking or noisy dogs?? How can you criticise the camera user who doesn't approach and yet find it acceptable that others use the path and create noise or other disturbances or even threats in the form of other animals?
Click to expand...

Standing around quietly can be a lot more disturbing than quickly passing by noisily though. Put yourself in the place of the animal - you're sitting in your house one evening, what do you find more disturbing: a group of people who are shouting/playing loud music/letting their dogs bark but who pass by quickly, or someone who stands on the path outside for an hour staring through your windows?
 
Will H said:
or someone who stands on the path outside for an hour staring through your windows?
Click to expand...
Owl boxes don't have windows (certainly none of the ones I've seen!) - they only look out their door when waking/getting ready to go... so I'm not sure I'd accept this point as valid in this instance.

(eta, plus you also cannot compare humans with "human emotions" to owls, who may well not give a toss if someone is sat 300 yards from their house :) )
 
Last edited:
Will H said:
Standing around quietly can be a lot more disturbing than quickly passing by noisily though. Put yourself in the place of the animal - you're sitting in your house one evening, what do you find more disturbing: a group of people who are shouting/playing loud music/letting their dogs bark but who pass by quickly, or someone who stands on the path outside for an hour staring through your windows?
Click to expand...
I take the point a human wouldn't be impressed by this, but an owl? I can't imagine their perception of someone standing on a path almost 100m from their windowless box is in any way disturbing their privacy. Can we really attribute human feelings and emotions to an owl anyway? o_O

Ok, let me ask it another way. The path is well established. It's a reasonable distance from their box and the owl is used to the nearish contact with people. If the owl was bothered by people on the path or felt threatened in any way, would it stay with the box or would it move to somewhere else? Isn't this this whole argument moot?

The Tawny I've spotted lives in a long, narrow wood. Bordered on one side by a road that has through traffic all day, horse riders several times a day, kids, walkers etc. The other side is a field used by kids for football and the gardens of some flats, also regularly used. The woods are played in most days by kids. The owl must not give a hoot about this as it's been living and hunting there for a long time. I still contend they can co-exist and do become used to us being around or they wouldn't live where they do.
 
Last edited:
RacingSnake said:
Owl boxes don't have windows (certainly none of the ones I've seen!) - they only look out their door when waking/getting ready to go... so I'm not sure I'd accept this point as valid in this instance.

(eta, plus you also cannot compare humans with "human emotions" to owls, who may well not give a toss if someone is sat 300 yards from their house :) )
Click to expand...

I'm not doing that - I was trying to make the point that, just because you know you're sitting quietly at a respectful distance posing no threat, the owl might not perceive it in the same way.

The point I was trying to get across was - animals get used to certain behaviours and therefore you can't assume just because they're used to having humans pass by at that distance they are used to having humans standing around for a prolonged period of time at the same distance. If they look out their entrance/exit point (because as I now know thanks to your helpful comment, owl boxes don't in fact have windows.....) when getting ready to go out a human/dog/horse/spaceship passing by might not disturb them if they are used to that thing passing by. However, if they are only used to it passing by then the fact it is stopped and looking at them might unsettle them if that is behaviour they are not used to seeing.

Of course, it might not cause them any bother either, different animals will have different levels of tolerance. You can't automatically assume that just because you're being still and quiet you're not causing a disturbance.
 
or, maybe because I'm not the only photographer in the area (aside from the one who gets up close) to sit in the same location, maybe the owl is more used to that? and in fact that is the normal behaviour instead? :)
 
As I say, every situation is different, you may well be right - I wan't really talking about your situation specifically. There have been a few posts suggesting that, as a general rule, behaviours that animals may be used to (such as people passing by or dogs barking) may be more disturbing than someone being still and quiet when, if that's actually a more unusual behaviour in the circumstance, that could potentially be more disturbing.
 
Will H said:
The point I was trying to get across was - animals get used to certain behaviours and therefore you can't assume just because they're used to having humans pass by at that distance they are used to having humans standing around for a prolonged period of time at the same distance.
Click to expand...

Several years ago I went to shoot a flock of Waxwings that were feeding from a group of trees overhanging a quiet road that led to the local station. Every 15 minutes a small group of people would walk from the station, directly under the feeding waxwings - who ignored them completely. However, if any of the group of birders tried stopping under the trees and pointing a lens in their direction the whole flock took off to hide in the tall trees opposite.

Highly frustrating.
 
Of course, the original point of my thread wasn't even about my proximity to the owls, it was more about whether crossing over into private property and sitting in front of the house is acceptable, and are you prepared to break 'rules' to get the good shots.

Getting closer is always preferable for "that" shot, for example there is a stunning barn owl shot currently in the nature section where the exif reads a shooting distance of 20m... that, to me is bloody close (five times closer than me and the subsequent 'debate' in this thread), and that is also the sort of shot that the person I was referring to in my OP was achieving... of course, I'm not saying that is what has happened in that particular shot, but more of a case of 'how far are you prepared to go!
 
RacingSnake said:
...but more of a case of 'how far are you prepared to go!
Click to expand...
I'd go as far as I reasonably could without breaking any law (intentionally) or causing harm/distress to any animal. However, the whole point of my posts throughout has been the same...is it always possible to know what is or isn't acceptable to the animal? No, of course it isn't!

Most of what I've read in this thread in terms of criticism has been based on speculation, opinion and guesswork (with the exception of the actions of the guy who climbed the fence and approached the owl). If someone could back those up with some facts about the animal behaviour, I'd feel much more comfortable with my own actions.
 
Last edited:
Well, I posted in this thread somewhere some quotes from the barn owl trust which I think made me (personally) feel OK about sitting watching them from my distance.

Your tawny owls are not protected, so whilst there is still a "welfare" question (of which I'm sure there is no issue), there is no legal implications of whether you're disturbing them or not.
 
wishmaster said:
I'd go as far as I reasonably could without breaking any law (intentionally) or causing harm/distress to any animal. However, the whole point of my posts throughout has been the same...is it always possible to know what is or isn't acceptable to the animal? No, of course it isn't!

Most of what I've read in this thread in terms of criticism has been based on speculation, opinion and guesswork (with the exception of the actions of the guy who climbed the fence and approached the owl). If someone could back those up with some facts about the animal behaviour, I'd feel much more comfortable with my own actions.
Click to expand...

Apart from the bit where he climbed onto private property seemingly without permission, the criticism of him doesn't really seem to be based on a lot of fact either to be completely fair.

There's no really hard and fast rule - every animal has a different level of tolerance; being close doesn't necessarily mean you'll be causing distress, being far away doesn't necessarily mean that you're not. Any guidelines will hopefully err well on the side of caution but are going to be based on generalisations, albeit ones that will hopefully be based on sound knowledge. If you set out to photograph something specific, then part of the planning process should be trying to learn enough about the subject that you can recognise signs of distress. Beyond that, you just have to learn to judge a situation based on what's going on in front of you, use your common sense, and remember that no shot is worth risking the welfare of your subject regardless of whether there are any legal implications.
 
Knowing your subject , study and a years of experience in my opinion are the key to getting the shot you want(of said subject) ,not just a bloody trophy hunting shot that I see so much off with idiots with willy waving lenses who really do believe they are wildlife photographers ,no idea half of them ,and I agree Will planning is a big key to getting that shot ....and a lot of time spent doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top